Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

Mr. SPEAKER: in the Chair

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

3.52 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell):: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the amendments to Clauses 12 and 21, of the new Clause (Transfer of interests in patents and designs), and of the amendments to Schedule 1, page 44, line 34, page 45, line 19 and page 45, line 41, standing on the Notice Paper in my name.
It may suit the convenience of hon. Members if I say, at once, that, subject to your consent, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to resist the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan).

Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley):: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add:
and of the new Clauses (Consumers' Councils), (Coal Appeal Tribunal) and (Export Development Council), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Harold Macmillan.
I think this Amendment is technically required by the Rules of Order. It will allow the Debate to proceed, should you, Mr. Speaker, decide to call the new Clause standing on the Order Paper in my name

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 12—(Determination of values for compensation purposes.)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall):: I beg to move, in page 14, line 37, at the end, to insert:
Provided that provision may be made by regulations requiring the said amount to be estimated on the basis that the purchaser on the assumed sale of the unit would be in a position to use the property in which the transferred interests subsisted with other assets used in association therewith before the transfer, or to be estimated in accordance with other rules prescribed for securing that the said amount shall not be diminished by disregard of any factor appearing to the Minister to be relevant.
It might be useful if I reminded the Committee of the background leading up to this Amendment. The object of Clause 12 is to lay down the principles which are to govern the manner in which values are to be determined for compensation purposes, and the terms of the Clause operate, as soon as may be after a compensation unit has been allocated to a valuation district. Further, it has been decided under Clause 10 that there is in that unit both a coal industry value and a value for subsidiary purposes. Those ingredients being present, this Clause empowers the district valuation board to split and determine these two separate values. All relevant particulars will, by this time, have been sent to the district valuation board by the Minister of Fuel and Power. The Subsection to which this Amendment relates provides that the value of a compensation unit shall be taken as the amount which it might have been expected to realise if it had been sold at the primary vesting date to a willing buyer by a willing seller in the


open market, and at that time have been valued as a whole, even after it is known that those values have to be split as between the coal industry value, and the value for subsidiary purposes.
This Amendment is intended primarily to meet representations which were made when we discussed this matter in Standing Committee. We accept the view then put forward that it is desirable that units consisting of all parts of the assets of an undertaking comprising a colliery concern and its subsidiaries, should be valued in the light of the value of the assets as a whole. Those who have read this Amendment will see that although we have accepted the view there put forward, we have couched the Amendment in much wider terms than those which were then proposed. Instead of inserting this in the Bill itself, which would have been difficult because of the technicalities of the question, we have made the terms much wider and put it in such a form that it can be done by regulation. It will then be possible to discuss this matter with the district valuation boards, and we hope, where justice demands it, to take into account quite a number of matters and considerations which could not be done if we limited it, as we would otherwise have to do, by making provision in the Bill itself. As this Amendment meets the wishes expressed in Standing Committee, and is, if anything, drawn in much wider terms than those who expressed those wishes perhaps expected, I hope the Committee will see their way to accept it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bromley):: I hope that at the opening of what might be called the second innings of this long-drawn match, I shall not be bowled by you, Major Milner, if I welcome the new Minister who takes his place on the Front Bench today. As I understand it, the former Minister resigned because he was not in sympathy with the Bill as it was before us in Committee. I have no doubt that by the time we complete the Report stage, the new Minister will be inclined to follow his example. However, we are glad to congratulate him upon an appointment and a promotion which the whole Committee feel he thoroughly deserves.
This Amendment, as I understand it—though these are rather difficult com

plicated subjects—has the effect that the parts of an asset of an undertaking which comprises a colliery concern and its subsidiaries, will be allowed for in the light of the value of the assets of the undertaking as a whole. This meets a point which was raised in Committee. On principle, we naturally prefer that this should be laid down in the Bill rather than provided for by regulation. Nevertheless, on this point, the Financial Secretary has made a good case. It is wiser to give the power by regulation because of the intricate number of points that might be raised, and with all of which it might not be possible to deal in the Bill. For these rather special purposes we feel that this Amendment is a necessary addition to, and an improvement of the system laid down in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Interim income pending satisfaction of compensation.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 21, line 39, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 30, on page 22, and to insert:
(2)Subject to the provisions of Subsections (3) and (4) of this Section as to the revenue payments therein mentioned,—

the said right conferred by Subsection (2) of Section 18 of this Act shall be satisfied, so far as regards interim income for the period between the primary vesting date and the time when any amount of compensation in respect of a transfer of transferred interests or of an overhead expenses increase is satisfied, by making, in addition to the issue of the stock then issued in satisfaction of that amount of compensation or to the making of the money payment then made in satisfaction of that amount of compensation, as the case may be, a money payment of an amount equal to interest for that period on that amount of compensation at such rate or rates as may be prescribed as respects that period or different parts thereof by order of the Treasury; and
the provisions of Section 19 of this Act as to the legal and beneficial title to compensation shall have effect in relation to additions to compensation under this Subsection, with the substitution for references therein to the compensation of references to the additions thereto.

(3) The following provisions of this Subsection shall have effect as to the making to colliery concerns, and to subsidiaries within the meaning of the First Schedule to this Act of such concerns, of payments in respect of each of the two years beginning with the primary vesting date and the first anniversary thereof respectively, that is to say,—




a colliery concern or such a subsidiary shall be entitled in respect of each of the said two years to a payment of an amount equal to one half of the comparable ascertained revenue of the concern, or of the subsidiary, as the case may be, attributable to activities thereof for which the transferred interests thereof were used or owned;


the payments to be made under the last preceding paragraph are in this Section referred to as 'revenue payments,' and shall be money payments."

I do not know, Major Milner, whether there is to be a discussion on this Amendment alone, or whether it is intended to take all the other Amendments to the Clause, together with this Amendment.

The Chairman:: I shall have to rule out of Order, as going beyond the Financial Resolution, the Amendment to the Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan)—in line 29, at the end, to add:
(4) Where on or before the second anniversary of the primary vesting date a colliery concern so notifies in writing to the Board, that colliery concern may exercise an option to continue to receive a payment calculated as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the foregoing Subsection for each of the years or any part of a year following upon the said second anniversary of the primary vesting date until the date of issue of compensation stock in satisfaction of the compensation due under Section 18 of this Act in lieu of receiving the money payment specified in Subsection (2) of this Section.
The other Amendments on the Paper to Clause 21 appear to be in Order, and I propose to call them as they are reached.

Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall):: Would I be in Order, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," in bringing to the notice of the Committee certain aspects which might be dealt with in the Clause, even though an actual Amendment on those points has been ruled out of Order?

The Chairman:: It would be out of Order to deal with the subject matter of an Amendment which, I understand, is not on the Order Paper.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: Since we are again in Committee, there can be a Debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman:: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: As I understand it, we are dealing now only with the Amendment which I moved. Clause 21 deals

with interim income, the right to which is recognised in Clause 18 of the Bill. We think it essential that the assets that are to be transferred should be vested in the Board as soon as possible. The period during which the colliery owners are in control, without any serious incentive to operate the mines efficiently, still less to embark on anything in the shape of expansion, may be a considerable time. That being so, in fairness both to shareholders and debenture holders and proprietors of collieries, it is laid down in the Bill that, for a period, interim income should be paid.
The method chosen to make these payments has reference to the revenues earned by the concern in question during previous years, and the Bill provides that for the first two years of vesting there shall be a right to revenue payments, made by reference to the revenues formerly received, and such revenue payments shall be in lieu of interest on the compensation which, except in special cases, has commenced to accrue before two years after the primary vesting date has arrived. In Committee, when Debates took place, on the question whether such payments should be treated as income, or as a capital payment, we undertook to look into the matter. We then took the view quite definitely that these were income payments, that whether paid in actual cash or in the shape of stock, they were nevertheless payments for income and not for capital, and, therefore, it was essential under the law that Income Tax should be deducted.
The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) moved an Amendment on this matter, and during the diccussion on it we undertook to consider, together with the Law Officers, whether that was, in fact, the case, and whether, if there was any injustice to shareholders or debenture holders who received as they might, after the lapse of the two years in question, stock instead of cash, anything could be done to prevent their having to pay Income Tax on what might appear to them to be a capital payment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) also made this point. He asked whether it was possible for the Government so to alter the present arrangements as laid down in the Bill to make it possible for stock and debenture holders to receive cash, not only during


the first two years but during any subsequent period, if such a period did arise during which the settlement in regard to a particular colliery had not taken place. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister has found himself able to meet the criticisms that were made.
The effect of this Amendment is to provide not only that cash will be paid in respect of revenue payments during the first two years, but if settlement has not then been reached, cash will be paid during such period thereafter as may be necessary in respect of interim income payments. Instead of an individual receiving interim income in the form of stock, which he may not be able to transfer at that time, he will receive cash throughout, so far as these payments are concerned. I think that covers the two main points that were made in Committee. Apart from meeting hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on that point, we are unable to meet them—and I have here, I think, the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan)—by making any change in the Bill which would ensure that they did not have to pay Income Tax on these payments. They will have to pay Income Tax. We have assured ourselves with the Inland Revenue that Income Tax is properly due, and most certainly should be paid. We think that any objection to Income Tax being paid can now be nullified, in view of the fact that we are to pay cash not only during the first two years, but also during any subsequent period.

Mr. Harold Macmillan:: First, I must thank the hon. Gentleman for the very lucid explanation he has given of a rather complicated point which arose in Committee. I would like to call attention to his opening phrase. He said it was in the national interest that, the matter having been decided, the vesting date should be as soon as possible. Is that because the longer it was put off, the less incentive there would be to owners and managements to develop their businesses and to carry on the normal expansion? I would mention, in passing, what an extraordinary light is here thrown upon other Government proposals which are to hold other industries for years in suspension. It is exactly that effect which the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid in this Bill. The hon.

Gentleman presented a formidable case, but I venture to ask one or two questions on the technical aspect of this Amendment.
We are very grateful that our point has to this extent been met. As I understand it, if the period goes on for more than two years, instead of no payment being made during years 3, 4 and 5, cash payments will be made. I think that is correct. I think I said in Committee that I thought Income Tax should be paid on these payments since they were income. During the time I have had to study the actual wording of the Amendment, I found it difficult to decide an important point. Will the Income Tax be paid in the years to which it relates? That is important, particularly in view of any possible Surtax. Suppose somebody received income in one year, which was really the income for two years. That would enormously increase the rate of Income Tax and Surtax which would be payable. I take it that would be counted to the year to which it properly related. If I could have an assurance on that point, it would clear up a matter, to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester):: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) is asking that Where a payment is made, which covers two years, there should be an allocation to two distinctive years in order to avoid what might be a heavy cumulative payment of tax. That is exactly what occurs in every other case. In the case of a lawyer, for instance, if litigation is proceeding over two years, and fees are being earned which are paid to cover a period of two years, then the burden of tax has to be met on that. The lawyer certainly is not in a position to say to the Inland Revenue authorities, "Look here, these fees have been earned over two years; therefore you ought to distribute it, or allocate it, over two years." I hope the Minister will not accept this doctrine that some special treatment should be given in this case where, in my submission, very generous consideration is being given already. I hope the Minister will reject that point of view, and leave these payments of Income Tax to be dealt with in the normal way.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South):: As I raised this point in Committee upstairs, I wish to say that I entirely accept the statement of the Financial Secretary that he has removed the difficulty which I felt would arise if the Bill stood as it was originally drafted. I am not altogether certain however that he has disposed of all our difficulties on this Clause. One difficulty that seems to me to remain is that although it is true that the interim income is now to be paid by way of cash payments and no part of it will be paid as stock, nevertheless, it is only over a very limited period that the cash payments will be made concurrently. After the end of the second year, as I understand it, payment will not be made until the final amount of compensation is decided. I apprehend that the position, so far as income is concerned, will be that those entitled to compensation will have no income at all over what may be quite an extensive period. Certainly there will be quite a number of cases in which two or three years may lapse. It is easy to point to the case of the comparatively well-to-do owner who has other resources to fall back upon, and who will ultimately get his money all right. On the other hand, there will be a lot of people who are interested in this compensation, and who may rely upon the income from their investments in the coal industry for their ordinary day-to-day needs. I do not see how this Amendment covers their position. They will have to subsist for a matter of two years without any income whatever. I do not feel altogether happy that we are treating these people fairly or adequately under this Bill.
Perhaps I might ask the Financial Secretary a question. It is true, of course, that the payments will not be stopped; the person will be due to receive a sum of money payable when the stock becomes payable, and I think there should be no doubt whatever that his future right to that sum of money will be inalienable when that stock with which it goes is alienable. I think this is a matter of some importance. It may be that, in the case of the individual concerned, at any rate, where there is obviously a fairly ample amount of compensation to be payable, they can legally borrow against their right to that money, in the expectation that it will be forthcoming, and that may be able to carry them over the period. I would like to have an assurance that this right

to deferred income is there, and that it will not be alienable, no matter what we do in regard to Clause 22 of the Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University):: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I am unable to understand this Amendment, but I do not succeed in construing paragraph (a). I should be glad of a little advice from the Front Bench.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham):: I cannot construe any of it.

Mr. Pickthorn:: I am fortified by that remark. As I understand the sentence, if we read the words, leaving out all the qualifications and modifications, it comes to this:
the said right…shall be satisfied…by making a money payment.
I am not quite sure whether "satisfy a right" is a draftsman's technical term, but I should be dubious that "satisfy" was the proper verb. I should bow to superior advice upon that point, but what I found more difficult was that the right should be met, or satisfied, or whatever the verb may be, by "making a payment." I should have thought that a right should be met by receiving the payment. I do not in the least wish to cast aspersions upon either the draftsman or the Ministers. If we are to legislate at this pace, draftsmen, even if visited every night by angels from heaven, will not always succeed in writing with the clarity of the Koran. I think there is a special duty on hon. Members of the Committee not to pass sentences which we are unable to construe, and, with the best will in the world, or, if not the best, at least a very good will, I really cannot construe this sentence between lines 4 and 13, and I should be glad of some explanation.

Mr. Hale:: I also am not able to understand this paragraph. I hope the Government will explain one thing which exercises my mind. In the original Clause, which was reasonably intelligible, it was provided that we should make a payment of the ascertainable revenue for the first two years, and thereafter pay interest at a rate fixed by the Treasury. In the Amendment, I do not know whether it is intended to pay both, or to pay them alternatively. If it is the intention to pay both, I would like to know why we are now paying both, and, if it is not the


intention to pay both, I should be grateful to anyone who can say where the intention is made clear. I dissociate myself from the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) on the Income Tax point. Industries are open to pay either on a revenue basis or on an earning basis, and they can elect with the inspectors whether they pay on money received or work done, and I do not think there is any point in that.

Major Peter Roberts:: I want to make quite certain that I understand clearly what the Financial Secretary said. The hon. Gentleman used the words "cash throughout." So far as I can see, in the first two years, there will be half-yearly payments, and then there will be a gap until full compensation is paid, when another cash payment will be made. There would thus be another period, according to how long it took for the compensation to be worked out, during which shareholders would receive nothing.

Mr. Mitchison (Kettering):: I do not find the same difficulty about the Amendment as some hon. Members. I find it difficult to appreciate the troubles of the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), but, of course, the best dictionaries come from the other place. I suppose a right can be satisfied by a payment.

Mr. Pickthorn:: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is explaining the matter to me, may I say that I can understand a right being satisfied by a payment made, but not a right being satisfied by making a payment, which is what the Amendment says.

Mr. Mitchison:: My short answer to that is "I can." I should have thought that a sufficient answer to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) is to indicate that a right, once satisfied, no longer exists to be dealt with by some other payment.

Mr. Hale:: Surely, one can have a right to draw two payments? A man might draw rent, and compensation, and all sorts of things. Of course, we can have both, and it may be the Minister's intention to give both, but, before the Committee passes this Amendment, I think it would be better for the Minister to make clear whether that is his intention.

Mr. Mitchison:: I do not wish to continue unduly this somewhat acrimonious discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Obviously, a right to two payments cannot be satisfied with one. On the case which was put to the Committee, as regards Income Tax, there is the natural comparison with the case in which a man receives at one time, a payment due in respect of different periods, as, for instance, the case of a man who recovers in a court of law payments which should have been made in particular financial years let us say, as in this case, two successive financial years. It is clear beyond doubt that any tax is assessed at the rate and on the footing applicable in respect of the year in which the payment was recoverable and not of the year in which it was finally and actually made.

Mr. Jenninõs (Sheffield, Hallam):: I am glad to hear that so many hon. Members fail to understand this Amendment, because, in doing my homework on Saturday night, I was completely in a fog on what it really did. I should like to be satisfied that the Financial Secretary now says that these payments are to continue for a period of two years, and that after that, there is to be a further payment. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman was very definite that he could not meet us on that point. If he has now given way, and means that a further payment will be made, I shall be satisfied. In regard to the Income Tax, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). If the revenue authorities are approached in the right way, concerning these payments, they will be assessed for Income Tax for the years in which they are presumed to have been earned. I think the Income Tax point is fairly clear, and I think we could omit that point, if the Minister will agree.
Why not carry on paying the people concerned their interest until they get their capital sums? For the life of me, I cannot understand why that should not be done and why it should be said that, after two years, there is to be a break. It may be that two or three years afterwards the recipient will get a large sum in respect of two or three back years after receiving no payment for a year or two. I think it is most unfair and quite wrong.
There is also the question of the rate of interest. The rate of interest is to be such as is approved by the Treasury.


But what rate of interest is it going to be? We are taking a man's capital from him. The idea of a "willing buyer and a willing seller" is mentioned which is a myth, because there is neither a "willing buyer" nor a "willing seller." A man is to be given a rate of interest, but he does not know what that rate is going to be. Imagine any willing buyer or willing seller disposing of his property on such terms. The rate of interest should be stated, so that everyone will know what rate is going to be received. The Amendment is far from clear and there is going to be a great deal of misunderstanding in connection with its wording, which will give employment to lawyers. I understand that three legal minds in this House are already differing on the subject, and I am sorry for the poor layman who wants to know what it means.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: The point under discussion is a very narrow one. We have now reached the stage when we are dealing, so it seems to me, with the question of tax, so far as most hon. Members are concerned. The majority of the speeches have centred in this question of the payment of Income Tax. It has been asked, if a colliery concerned is paid what is due to it in one year and that payment covers several years, what will be the effect as regards Income Tax? I believe that is the point which is mainly worrying the Committee and, therefore, I deal with it first.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) raised this matter in Committee and he then agreed that interim income payments should certainly attract tax, but he did say that, when there was any arrangement for a period over the two years and when the collieries concerned received inalienable stock at that juncture, it was rather unfair to make them pay Income Tax on it. We met that criticism, and payments of all kinds under this Clause will now be made in cash. So far as the first two years are concerned, we have always agreed that payments should be made in cash, and this Amendment, in spite of what the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) says, does provide that all interim income payments will now be made in cash. The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) seemed to

think that there would inevitably be a long wait after the first two years. It is our hope that a very large number of claims will have been settled within the first two years.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:: Not inevitably.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: It is our hope that a large number will have reached the settlement stage in the first two years, but we have to make arrangements for concerns which take longer to wind up and that is why we have this arrangement about the period in excess of two years, but payments will not run on indefinitely and settlement will take place fairly soon, even if it takes more than two years. Under Clause 18 (3) it will be found that payment can be made by regulations. The Subsection reads:
Provision may be made by regulations for authorising the partial satisfaction of such compensation before the determination of the amount thereof has been completed.
Therefore, if there is a case, such as that envisaged by the hon. Member for South Hendon, where people want their money and cannot get it, it will be possible, under the terms of this Bill, for an advance or advances to be made.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: Can the hon. Gentleman say what such advances would be in respect of?

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: They would be advances of the interim interest or income whichever it may be.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: Does the right to make "partial satisfaction" mean payment of some of the capital stock, or does it mean payment of some of the cash income, which might be said to have accrued during the third, fourth or fifth year? That is the point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: Largely, of course, the advances will be made towards final compensation, and the Minister is empowered under Clause 18 (3), if the circumstances are such as to warrant it, to make advances towards the payment of final compensation.

Hon. Members:: Stock?

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: Yes.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:: On reading Clause 18, it looks as if the natural construction of the word "compensation" in Subsection (3) is "capital." If some words


were added to make it clear that there was an express power to amend, then, I think, it would cover the point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: Surely, the hon. Gentleman does not understand what is involved here. What I am now telling him is that, in circumstances such as have been described, it will be possible for a colliery concern to receive partial compensation which will include the interest due to it at that particular time. I do not know what more a colliery concern could want. It is going to get a considerable slice of the compensation due to it together with interest thereon, and I do not think that there is anything unjust or unfair about that.
I was in process of saying, in reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge University, that this Amendment, although it may appear obscure, means, no more and no less, than that payments which, up to now have been limited to the first two years, so far as cash is concerned, may now be extended to a period beyond two years, so that no inalienable stock will be paid at all so far as interim revenue is concerned. Throughout the whole period, whether two years or longer, people will get a payment in cash. That, I am informed, is what the words mean and that is how we hope they will be construed when the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Hale:: Is the Financial Secretary going to answer the question I put earlier which was, Are there to be two payments or only one?

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: There is a Government Amendment on that, which will be dealt with later.

Mr. Hale:: One appreciates that we would be out of Order in discussing any Amendment in advance, but the matter is of importance, because the Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, mentions the preceding Subsection, and the preceding Subsection will still be Subsection (6), which has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I take it that I would be out of Order if I were now to deal with a subsequent Amendment, and I think my hon. Friend will find that when we reach the Amendment he will not have lost anything by not receiving a full reply now. In fact, I think I am precluded from replying to him on that point. 

This intervention reminds me that there was another point raised dealing with the payment of Surtax. I was asked whether a payment made after the end of the first two years, if paid in one lump sum, will be subject to Surtax, because the fact that it has been paid altogether may bring the recipient into the Surtax region. The short answer is that the Act of 1927 will apply to these payments. I think it is Section 34 of the Finance Act, 1927, which, as hon. Members may remember, gives relief from Surtax where income attributable to a period exceeding one year is received in one year. Under the terms of the Section, it is possible for those liable to tax to spread it over the years to which it is attributable, instead of having to pay it as though it had been definitely earned and received within one particular year. I think that answers the only question outstanding, and, that being so, I hope we may now be allowed to have this Amendment.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough):: I think the only thing which has emerged quite clearly from the Financial Secretary's speech is that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) is wrong in his interpretation of Income Tax law.

Mr. Turner-Samuels:: I understand that my hon. Friend's last point dealt merely with Surtax. Reference has been made to Income Tax.

Captain Crookshank:: I do not think it makes very much difference, unless the Income Tax comes into the Surtax ranges. If there is this difference of opinion between lawyers opposite it is regrettable that we have not a Law Officer here. We have had three different interpretations, but, knowing the resources which the Financial Secretary has at his disposal, I think he is probably right, and the critics behind him are wrong. On the point which has just been dealt with, the Surtax position is adequately covered by the existing law. The only thing I really wanted to point out on this Amendment is that so long as we have the Bill here, and there are Members present who were on the Standing Committee, they must not be misled by something to which the Financial Secretary quite unintentionally referred. He kept talking about this being interim income, and compensation for a colliery undertaking. It is far wider than that. This is not concerned with colliery


undertakings. It deals with transferred interests, and if hon. Members who have not had the opportunity or the necessity for studying the Bill will look at Clause 5 (1) they will see that the transferred assets are those of the subsidiaries referred to in the first part of the First Schedule. Therefore, we are dealing with something far bigger than merely coal.

Mr. Jennings:: I would like to ask the Financial Secretary why he did not deal with the point about continuing to pay interest over the two years. He never attempted to answer that question. What is to prevent the Bill stating that interest shall be paid for one, two, three or four years until compensation is paid? That would be the fair and proper thing to do. Why stop at two years and then say, "I will give you a bulk sum"? The other point on which he did not satisfy me was the rate of interest which the Treasury is likely to fix.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: It would be unfair if I stated the rate of interest.

Mr. Jennings:: To whom?

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: We dealt with this point in Committee upstairs at considerable length. It arose not only on this question but at various stages of our discussions there. The short reply to the hon. Gentleman is that it would be unfair now to lay down a rate of interest which might be completely inappropriate at the time these payments are made. The rate at which the Government can borrow money varies from time to time, and it will be for the Treasury to decide as and when these payments are made. In the case of the Bank of England Bill the matter was comparatively simple; it was being taken over on a given date. In this case we are dealing with a complicated industry very widely spread, not confined entirely to mining coal but engaged in all sorts of ancillary undertakings. The Minister will fix the vesting date, but it will take some time thereafter for the whole thing to be completely wound up.
One reason for fixing the two years, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, is that we are anxious that the whole matter should be speeded up and, therefore, no one should be given the impression that he can take his time and be leisurely about it. We want this thing settled and out of

the way. That is why two years is fixed. We are trying to be as fair as we can about the extra time allowed by ensuring that where it is not the fault of the people engaged in the industry, or their shareholders or debenture holders, some income shall go on accruing to them until the matter is finally wound up. I think those reasons are sufficient, and the Committee generally will agree that they are just. I have stated the reason why it is not possible for us to fix the rate of interest and put it in the Bill. It will have to be fixed by the Treasury at the time and in the light of circumstances then existing.

Captain Crookshank:: It seems to emerge from what the hon. Gentleman has said that there is a possibility of people spinning out the proceedings. The existing owners have no particular interest in spinning them out. They do not have any income in the interim period. Secondly, it does not rest with them. The complicated valuation Clauses in the Bill do not rest on the action of the present owners. It depends on how soon and how quickly the district valuation boards can do their work, and how soon and quickly the Minister can decide on what are the compensation units to be valued. I hope, therefore, the Minister will not take what appears to me to be a rather unfair line and try to put the onus on the existing owners and complain that they may be delaying the proceedings. Once the vesting date has been fixed, it cannot be to their interests to do anything of the kind. If there is a hold up, it will not be the result of their inaction so much as the slowness of the compensation machinery procedure.

Mr. Maclay (Montrose Burghs):: I would like to raise a small point concerning the elucidation of paragraph 2 (b) of the Amendment. I would like to know what it means. I have read it carefully several times, and I have obtained at least three possible meanings from it. I admit I have been rather out of touch, as I was not a Member of the Standing Committee. The wording is:
The provisions of section nineteen of this Act as to the legal and beneficial title to compensation shall have effect in relation to additions to compensation under this subsection, with the substitution for references therein to the compensation of references to the additions thereto.


I have not decided whether "therein" refers to the Subsection or to "Section nineteen of this Act." Reading it through with the greatest care one has great difficulty in deciding what it refers to. The last part of this paragraph,
with the substitution for references therein to the compensation of references to the additions thereto 
simply makes nonsense.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay):: May I ask the Financial Secretary to clear up a point for me? I gather that at some stage of these proceedings some compensation will be paid to an individual. Suppose between now and then the individual dies. On what basis is he to be assessed for Death Duties? That does seem to me to be a very vital point. He may be assessed on this or that basis. He may wish to clear off his debt to the State. Under those circumstances, if he does not know quite when, how and on what basis he is to be paid, how can the State assess him for Death Duties Perhaps I might, with great respect, make a suggestion to the Government. It might get over the difficulty quite easily if the Government would make all these payments by the individual immediately available for the provisional payment of Death Duties. Otherwise, I cannot see how he can humanly pay any Death Duties at all. That being the case, might it not be advisable for the Government to make some such provision? I would like that looked into. The Committee ought to know about these matters. I am sure my suggestion is practical, that they should allow these debts to the State to be used by the Government for the burdens which are imposed on the individual by the State.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield):: It is provided that the rates of interest shall be prescribed by order of the Treasury. I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether such orders will lie upon the Table and be under the control of Parliament. As the Bill is now drafted, Clause 57 merely provides that regulations made under this Bill shall be laid before Parliament. In the interpretation Clause "regulations" are defined as "regulations made by the Minister." There is no reference to orders made by the Treasury being laid before Parliament. Can the Financial Secretary give any assurance

that such orders made by the Treasury prescribing rates of interest will be laid before Parliament?

Mr. Mitchison:: I hope very much that the Financial Secretary will give short shrift to the attempt from the benches opposite to get the rate of interest fixed in advance when the rate of interest is falling. As I understand it, cheaper money is part of the policy of the Government. No doubt it might very well suit hon. Gentlemen opposite and those whom they represent to have the rates of interest fixed in advance with a falling market, but it would not be for the benefit of the public Exchequer.

Mr. McKie (Galloway):: I hope the Financial Secretary will make some attempt to reply to the important point which was so ably propounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), namely, what is to be the position of the heirs and legatees of an individual largely interested in a coal mining undertaking who may die, pending the negotiations of the compensation which may be due to him? There can be no question that that is a substantial point.

Mr. Tom Smith (Normanton):: On a point of Order. May I suggest, with all due respect, that this is hardly the Clause upon which to discuss this matter?

The Chairman:: I was very doubtful whether the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was quite in Order when he raised this matter. Perhaps the Financial Secretary may be able to give an early answer to the query in order that we may leave the point

Mr. C. Williams:: May I say, Major Milner, that I very much regret if by any chance I was out of Order, but it seemed to me that this was a point which we would have to consider at some time, and it was so nearly on the points which were being raised. I thought it would be to the general advantage, in the very reasonable atmosphere in which we are dealing with these matters, if it was dealt with now. I am sorry if I was out of Order.

Mr. McKie:: As you have indicated to the Committee, Major Milner, it would be wise if we were to refrain from discussing that. I must bow to your Ruling. I was very disturbed at the way in which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) made hi., plea to


the Financial Secretary to give short shrift to all those hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have been pressing, and I think very rightly pressing, that the rate of interest should be named, or that we should, at all events, be given some indication in the Committee of the line on which the Government propose to act in this direction. Of course, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering attempted to read into our vary reasonable pleas and fears some sinister motive and intention. That is always the kind of attitude which is adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite it we on this side of the Committee express any fear about any very reasonable matter such as the fear that has been expressed from these benches this afternoon. I, and I am sure all my hon. Friends who sit on these benches, have no desire to see the man or the colliery undertaking to whom compensation is due benefiting in this way by having the rate of interest fixed in advance, with a falling market. I hope that on more mature reflection and consideration he will bring his keen mental faculties to bear and to see that on this occasion at all events we are to be fully acquitted of having any sinister motive.
I should like to support the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) with regard to the cessation of the interim payments after the two years. He thinks, and I think, and I am sure all hon. Members on these benches agree, that this is a very unsatisfactory way of doing business. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) pointed out, in many cases, just as with the land, this may be the only source of income the individual may have, and he is to be deprived of it through no fault of his own. He may be deprived for some consider able period—I would not like to put a period on it—of any income at all. It seems that right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee are unable to distinguish between what is really capital and what is really income. The Financial Secretary has already commiserated with himself this afternoon. He says he realises he is not on the same secure ground with regard to this nationalisation proposal as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was when he nationalised the Bank of England some months ago.

Although, of course, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, I sympathise with him. I take it that this is the kind of insecure ground upon which all spokesmen from the Treasury bench will find themselves increasingly thrown as the months and years of this Parliament elapse.

5.0 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor:: May I have an answer from the Financial Secretary to the question whether the Treasury orders prescribing rates of interest will be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament will have control, or whether it is to be a purely arbitrary decision on the part of the Treasury?

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: They will not be laid before Parliament; there is no reason why they should be. These things have been done before, though perhaps not in a Bill of this kind, and so far as I know it has never been suggested that the Treasury should come to this House for permission to do it and lay the Regulations on the Table for a given time. That is not laid down in the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has no intention, if he can help it, of embodying it in the Bill. That is the short answer.

Mr. C. Williams: rose——

Mr. Maclay:: I should be very grateful if paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) of the Amendment could be explained.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I have been up and down quite a lot this afternoon and I think the Committee will agree that I have done my best, in spite of the fact that this is a complicated Measure, to meet the criticisms that have been made. The real answer to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) is a remark that was made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) when he pointed out that I, earlier on, had used colliery companies by way of illustration. He said that it was not only colliery companies, but that, under Clause 5, the net was spread a good deal wider. Paragraph (b) of Subsection 2 in the Amendment brings in those other beneficial owners or concerns which may be interested in this matter.

Mr. C. Williams:: May I have an answer also?.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: Death Duties are not included here and there is no intention of including them. I do not think the question arises of the handing in of this stock in payment of Death Duties. There will be no question of a large block of transferable stock—because that is what it would be—in the hands of an individual, and companies do not die and pay Death Duties. If an individual were to die, by that time he would have received transferable stock. [An HON. MEMBER: "If he died before it was settled?"] Even then it would not arise, because his estate, later on, would get his share of the transferable stock to which he was entitled as shareholder or debenture holder in whatever concern it might be. Therefore, the point surely does not arise. By the time duty was payable, executors or administrators of the will of the person who has died would have transferable Government stock negotiable in the open market. There would, therefore, be no point in handing it in for the payment of Death Duties.

Mr. Williams:: But we do not really know what this amount is going to be nor at what figure it will stand, say, a year and a half after the death. On what basis will it be valued for Death Duties, or will the estate have to pay on a nominal sum with the prospect of having to pay again later?

Mr. Leslie Hale:: The Estate Duties authorities do not ask the payment of Death Duties immediately where estates are not in hand and cannot be immediately realised.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: But they might charge a much higher rate of interest.

Mr. Norman Bower (Harrow, West):: I only want to ask the Financial Secretary about one very small point. He said just now that paragraph (b) brings in other beneficial owners. It does not seem to me to do that at all, as I understand it; all it does is to say that the people who are entitled to compensation are now entitled to the additional compensation.

Hon. Members:: That is right.

Sir J. Mellor:: The Financial Secretary has given no reasons whatever for the Minister's refusal to make these Treasury orders subject to Parliamentary control.

He merely said that the Minister was not going to do it; there was no purpose in it, and he did not explain himself at all. I cannot see any objection from any point of view. No delay would be involved; the orders would be laid before Parliament and would be subject to annulment by Resolution of the House. Meanwhile there would be no delay, and if the orders were annulled nothing that had been done previously would be invalidated. Surely orders of this character ought to be classified as Statutory Instruments, and we have all understood that in future——

Mr. Turner-Samuels:: On a point of Order. With all respect, I do not see that this has anything to do with any part of this Amendment.

The Chairman:: The Amendment does refer to money paid by way of interest by order of the Treasury. As I understand it, the hon. Member is asking that such orders should be subject to Parliamentary approval. Whether that should be so or not is a matter which it seems to me it is quite proper to discuss.

Sir J. Mellor:: I feel that it is very important that these orders made by the Treasury should not be made in a purely arbitrary manner, as would be possible here. I am not suggesting that the Treasury are likely to do anything unfair, but at least it would give a greater measure of public confidence and a greater feeling of security if these orders had to be laid before Parliament and were subject to annulment by Prayer, so that complete Parliamentary control would be maintained. I really think the Financial Secretary ought to give some better reason than merely to say that the Minister is not prepared to do it. He really owes the Committee a better explanation than that.

Mr. Mitchison:: Could the hon. Gentleman give a precedent for the wildly revolutionary suggestion he is making? There are abundant instances of the Treasury fixing the rate of interest in somewhat similar cases, but I am not aware that the orders fixing such rates of interest have to be laid before this House.

Sir J. Mellor:: It is quite possible that this House may occasionally have lacked vigilance and have allowed such provisions to get into Acts, but that is no reason why we should do so on this occasion. I


think this matter ought to be dealt with on its merits, and I am astonished that the Financial Secretary still shows no inclination whatever to give any sort of reasoned answer.

Mr. Pickthorn:: We have now been told twice, once from the Front Bench and now by the hon. and learned Gentleman behind, that there are ample precedents for this being done. We have also heard cheers from the other side for the view that it is quite proper for a Minister simply to say that it is not going to be done, without giving any reasons. I therefore think it is now incumbent upon the Committee to ask that we should have some of these precedents submitted, so that we may be able to judge how far they are precedents or not. I do not think that this is a matter which ought to be wholly decided by precedent, but it is perfectly clear that, once precedent becomes the only argumentative basis on the Government side, that precedent should be adduced so that it can be examined.

Mr. C. Williams: rose——

Mr. James Glanville (Consett):: On a point of Order. May I ask the Front Bench to impress upon our hon. Friends opposite that we are nationalising—[Interruption].

The Chairman:: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. C. Williams:: A highly provocative and controversial statement has been made by the hon. Gentleman on the back Benches opposite. Many of us have been rather stirred up. We were told by the Financial Secretary that it was customary for the Government on these occasions to have a reasonable intention to see that these matters are laid before the House. We then have the hon. Gentleman behind, who may or may not know anything about this—I have no means of knowing—telling us that there are any number of instances We have not been told those instances. The Government dislike the Committee having any say on the matter. That has been made abundantly clear by the Financial Secretary. As a Member of the House I say that that is not in the best interests of the House, and because of that, and because of the deliberately provocative speeches from behind the Government, I see no reason why we should allow the position of Members of Parliament to be weakened

either by the Government or their provocative supporters sitting behind them who, I notice, speak on these matters, although they do not allow any coalminer to do so.

Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford):: Do these orders made by the Treasury go before the Select Committee?

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: No.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 22, line 31, to leave out from the beginning, to "comparable," in line 32, and to insert:
(c)for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection a concern's or subsidiary's.
This, and most of the Amendments that immediately follow, are consequential on the Amendment that has just been agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 34, after "concern," insert "or subsidiary."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, after "principles," to insert:
subject to such adaptations as may be prescribed.
This also is a drafting Amendment. The Inland Revenue Department called our attention to difficulties that might arise in the application of Income Tax principles, in the computation of profits, in relation, particularly, to depreciation allowances, which may not be taken fully into account, and interest payments. The phrase "subject to such adaptations as may be prescribed" has been introduced to permit of difficulties being dealt with by regulation.

Captain Crookshank:: I hope that the Committee will realise what is meant by the word "prescribed." Hon. Members not very familiar with the Bill will find it defined on page 42. It means "prescribed by regulations." That means that either the Treasury or the Minister, as the case may be, may introduce regulations. In order to do what? If this Amendment is made—and I should have thought it was considerably more than a drafting Amendment, in view of what the Financial Secretary has said—it will permit alteration of Income Tax principles as mentioned in the Clause in line 35 in the words:


the amount of its profits and gains so attributable computed on Income Tax principles.
"Income Tax principles" means something fixed in law and practice. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) is not here and so cannot help me, hut, perhaps, his colleague will. I think these principles are established, either by law, or by such law and custom that everybody knows what they are.

Mr. Hale:: The only suggestion I can give is from my own knowledge and personal experience, and I have always taken the view that there are no principles attached to it at all.

5.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank:: We must blame our predecessors in this House for what they have done. Income Tax principles, whatever they may be, must in this connection be already established and defined. If we accept this Amendment it will be up to the Minister or the Treasury, as the case may be, to make adaptations of those principles by regulations. I do not think that that, as a general principle, is good, because Income Tax problems should be kept for this House to deal with. I am very doubtful whether we should, even in this modified form, leave it to any Minister to introduce regulations—which may or may not have to go before the House, according to the particular procedure adopted—which make alterations in the Income Tax principles. I should have thought that, if the Government have something quite clear in mind, they should introduce it in words here. They are very reluctant throughout the Bill to introduce words. They much prefer to do things by regulations, which are apt in many cases; but in the case of Income Tax principles there should be proper legislation, and words should be introduced here.

Mr. C. Williams:: I think that a number of people have been rather distressed in their minds by what has happened in connection with this Amendment. We were first told that this Amendment was almost, if not entirely, consequential. Then the Financial Secretary himself made a considerable explanation, which was the beginning of my doubts about the Amendment, the beginning of my doubts as to what really was happening Now we

have heard the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who points out that the words of the Amendment "subject to such adaptations as may be prescribed" are affected by something which is in the Bill elsewhere. Apparently we are going to have changes in taxation made by regulations made by the Treasury, or whoever it may be. It has always seemed to me a cardinal principle that the finances of this country and taxation should be ordered and laid down only by the House of Commons. Here, by this very harmless seeming Amendment, moved from the Front Bench opposite, we are to have backstairs legislation, and alterations made in taxation without the House of Commons knowing. Will the regulations be laid before the House or not? We do not know. I am amazed that at such a time as this an Amendment of this kind should be moved by the Government. The Committee does not know and the House will riot know whether taxation is put up or reduced. The House of Commons is the only taxing authority, and we cannot allow Ministers to get away with regulations of which we know nothing. We may be wrong, and it may not be so, but it is wrong that, by regulation the Minister should be able to vary the amounts up or down. I am amazed there are no Members of the Liberal Party here to get up and protest against this iniquitous procedure which allows the Government to do what they like with the taxpayer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I am sorry if I led the Committee to believe that this Amendment was consequential and drafting in the sense in which we frequently use those words. It is difficult, with all these Amendments on the Order Paper, to sort them out, but as soon as I commenced to deal with the Amendment, I realised that there was a little substance in it. I apologise to the Committee if I misled hon. Members, although hon. Members on the other side should be throwing bouquets at us, and not criticising this Amendment, which will help colliery owners and those other concerns.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:: I think the Financial Secretary should bear in mind that some of us represent the taxpayer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: Criticisms have been directed by hon. Members opposite towards improving the Bill in the direction


of fairer compensation for the concern; which are being taken over. I am simply pointing out that this Amendment helps a colliery concern, a subsidiary concern and an undertaking which come under the Bill perhaps to obtain a fairer crack of the whip than they might otherwise have got if we did not insert this Amendment. Inland revenue regulations being what they are, it may happen that they are not applicable, or in certain circumstances that they cannot be taken into account because of their limitations. It will be permissible here to go outside these regulations. That is why we propose after "principles" to insert the words "subject to such adaptations as may be prescribed." These adaptations will be in the direction of making them more elastic, and will enable them to act more justly towards the concerns.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: I think that the Financial Secretary has helped us, because he has now told us that the purpose of this Amendment is to make more flexible what might otherwise have operated with undue rigidity. I think that it would have been easier if the Financial Secretary had given us some examples when he moved the Amendment. As I understand it, owing to the working of this Clause, there might be unfairness upon the taxpayer which the regulations would be calculated to assist. If the hon. Gentleman had given an example, it would have made it easier for us to understand precisely what is in his mind.

Mr. C. Williams:: The Financial Secretary said something about compensation for the owner of a mine. The bulk of my remarks were not addressed to the question of whether it was fair or not to the coalowner, but to this principle which he seems to be inserting in regard to taxation by regulation. The basis of my objection was that this was being done by regulation—I think I have already said that I objected whether the variation was to be up or down. I think that we are entitled to know on what basis the hon. Gentleman has done this.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: It is allowed for in the Bill. Regulations will be made, and the House will know what regulations have been promulgated. If hon. Members are aggrieved about them, there are ways and means of raising the matter,

either on the Adjournment or by a Prayer.

Mr. Williams:: I was not clear under what precedent this was being introduced, or what precedent gives the Government these powers.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: This is the first time we have had a Labour Government with an absolute majority, and if we went on precedents, a great deal of legislation would never reach the Statute Book.

Mr. Williams:: That really alters the whole position. The Financial Secretary has admitted that precedents mean nothing, and that the Government are now laying down something which goes against the principles of taxation. Seldom, if ever, have I heard it more directly put across that by regulation the Government are going to do what they like, and that they are going to do some things which have not even been agreed to by the House. I think that the Financial Secretary has given away a great deal. I am very glad that I had the good fortune to see this point and get that very clear definition, that the Government have every intention of taking away the rights of the taxpayers' representatives in regard to the imposition of taxation.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 22, line 37, to leave out "thirtieth day of June," and to insert "first day of July."
This is a drafting Amendment. In view of the fact that the accounting period of many firms ends on 30th June, it was felt that these words should be inserted as being the best date for the purpose.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: I must be careful not to help the Government too much. I think that my hon. Friends can accept this Amendment, but I must protest against this continual increase in the use in our proceedings of the words "This is a drafting Amendment." The words "drafting Amendment" are used when there is a mistake of a comma, a mistake in spelling, or because the words do not read. This is not a drafting Amendment. It makes a change. It is not an important Amendment, but, as I understand it, the majority of companies end their financial year on 30th June, and, therefore, it is obviously right to make the date 1st July.


It is becoming a very frequent practice to say that an Amendment is drafting. This is not a drafting Amendment, but a minor Amendment, as it affects a change. As I say, we accept it.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 22, line 40, to leave out "thirtieth day of June," and to insert "first day of July."
This is a minor Amendment. I should like to point out that the use of the words "drafting Amendment" goes back much further than August last, when this Government took office. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that "drafting" is the wrong word to use, although I think we all know what we mean when we say that.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 45, leave out "the concern," and insert "a colliery concern."
In page 23, line 1, leave out "Subsection (2) of this Section," and insert "this Subsection."
In line 3, leave out from "ascertainments," to end of line 4.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 23, line 5, to leave out "twopence," and to insert "fourpence."
This is really a drafting Amendment to correct a slip, and I think that "drafting" is the correct word. In the Second Reading print of the Bill it was quite clearly laid down that one of the alternatives open to a colliery concern for interim income was an amount equal to twopence per ton on the concerns output of commercially disposable coal. This part of the Clause was recast in Committee, as some hon. Members will recollect, and, by a mistake in a rather involved Clause, the half profit provision was applied also to the twopence, thereby reducing the amount payable to one penny per ton. By substituting "fourpence" for "twopence" this is corrected, and the amount payable will be, as my right hon. Friend intended, twopence per ton.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: There are so many propositions coming from the hon. Gentleman and his friends, which we find it

difficult to accept, that it is with pleasure that we accept the proposition that one half of fourpence is twopence.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 23, line 6, to leave out from "for," to "those," in line 8, and to insert "that period."
This Amendment is consequential on what we have already done.

Captain Crookshank:: I do not think it is consequential. This is an Amendment for which I, personally, am very grateful, because it covers a point which I raised on the Committee stage. As the Bill is drafted, it lays down a
period of 12 months before the primary vesting date as may be prescribed for the purposes of this proviso
and I pointed out that it would be within the Minister's powers to select any 12 months at any time, I asked him to bring it down to something more definite. The result is that he has proposed this Amendment, which is exactly what I asked for, and for which I thank him very much,
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 23, line II, to leave out "subsection," and to insert "paragraph."
A note which I have here says that the Amendment is "purely drafting and consequential." Therefore, it is pure, drafting, and consequential, and I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will have nothing further to say.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 23, line 12, after "concern," to insert "or subsidiary."

Captain Crookshank:: This will have to be changed, at a later stage, because there is no such thing as "concern" in the Bill. It is "colliery concern." If the hon. Gentleman will look back three or four Amendments, he will see that we solemnly inserted the words "colliery concern" instead of "concern."
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 23, line 15, after "a," insert "colliery."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, to leave out "the period prescribed thereunder," and to insert "any period."

Captain Crookshank:: I am prepared to let this one go, but I suspect that it ought to be "that period "and not "any period."
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, in page 23, line 21, to leave out Subsection (7), and to insert:
(7) The provision made by the last preceding Subsection shall be deemed, in the case of any colliery concern or of any such subsidiary, to be in substitution for the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Section so far as regards additions thereunder for the said two years or any part thereof to compensation for a transfer of transferred interests, being compensation attributable to transferred interests of that concern or subsidiary, except as to any excess of the aggregate amount of such additions over the aggregate amount of the revenue payments of that concern or subsidiary.
(8) The Minister may by regulations make such provision supplementary to or consequential on the provisions of this Section, as appears to him to be necessary or expedient, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this Subsection, provision may be made by regulations made thereunder for making adjustments requisite for giving effect to the last preceding Subsection and for making goad any underpayment or overpayment to a colliery concern or such a subsidiary which may occur in consequence of the making of additions or revenue payments under this Section before all the facts relevant for giving effect to the last preceding Subsection have become ascertainable.

Here, apparently, there has been a misprint in the Order Paper. Perhaps this is what misled my hon. Friend for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale). It is proposed to insert the words on the Order Paper with this change, if the Committee and you, Mr. Beaumont, will agree to it: Instead of "(7)" read "(4)" and instead of "(8)" read "(5)". It makes no difference to the wording or to the intention. This is consequential to the main Amendment which was passed earlier on this Clause, and upon which there was fairly considerable discussion.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:: The Financial Secretary said that this Amendment was purely consequential. I am not certain that that is so. It may be that it does not alter what was originally in the Bill. It seems to me there is a difference in this respect, that in the Amendment as it stands on the Paper the words used are:

except as to any excess of the aggregate amount of such additions over the aggregate amount of the revenue payments of that concern or subsidiary.
I am a little surprised at only the excess being excepted. As I understand the Amendment as it now runs, if a colliery concern receives a revenue payment in respect of its first two years and that payment is larger than what is ultimately decided upon, then an adjustment will have to be made. In other words, a colliery concern which receives its compensation at say three years after the primary vesting date will only receive three years' interest; and if, in fact, during the first two years the revenue payments are in excess of the interest attributable to those years, then in respect of the third year, it will receive a lesser amount. I do not quarrel with this result, but it seems to me that if there is an adjustment in the case of an excess equally an adjustment should be made the other way round. If the colliery receives during the first two years a smaller amount than the interest due, then an addition should be made in respect of the last year so as to bring the amount up to the grand total that it would have received if it received interest throughout the period.
I hope that the difficult point I am trying to make is clear to the Financial Secretary. I think it is necessary here to cater not only for the possibility of excess but also for the possibility of deficit. It may be that, on the point I am making he has some information, some power to make regulations, which power is hidden in this Bill. I should like some explanation from the Government as to the meaning of these words, and an assurance that the point is being looked after.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I should like to say at once that the point is being looked after, and if the annual interest does exceed the amount of the revenue payment there will be no attempt to adjust, and we should not reclaim either way. If there is a greater income accruing, that will be to the benefit of the person who gets it, because there will be no attempt to make an adjustment. A man, a woman or a colliery concern will benefit by any increase in the income even on the interest income.

5.45 P.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth:: I am afraid the Financial Secretary has not answered the point I was making, but he has answered


another point. I must give a concrete case. Suppose to take a simple case compensation works out so as to give an annual income of £1,000 a year, and suppose, in fact, that compensation becomes payable three years after the vesting date: the concern in that case would be entitled to £3,000 by way of compensation. But it may happen that during the first two years the revenue payment works out at £1,200 a year. What would happen is that the concern will receive £2,400 during the first two years, and by virtue of the provision of this Amendment it will only receive a further £600 during the last period. All that the Financial Secretary has told the Committee is this: supposing, in fact, that the revenue payment had been at the rate of £1,800 during each of the first two years so that the concern receives £3,600 then no attempt will be made to recover the £600 excess payment.
I can quite appreciate that, and I should think it is likely to be a comparatively rare occurrence. I do not quarrel about the proposal to enable a final adjustment to be made, so that those concerns which get more income than they should have got during the two years have their accounts properly adjusted by a deduction during the last year. However take the example which I gave. Supposing that instead of receiving £1,200 during each of the first two years this concern is only entitled to £800 a year by way of revenue payment; then as this Clause provides that the two kinds of payment are alternative to one another, and as this Subsection only refers to excess and not to a deficit, what will happen is that the concern will only receive £1,000 during the third year or a grand total of £2,600. There is nothing to make good the deficit of £400. The Government stand to gain in one type of case, but make no payment in the other type of case. I think it is essential that fair treatment should be meted out in both cases.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: We intend that fair treatment should be meted out. In parentheses, I might say that the hon. Member is not now speaking for the taxpayer, but is seeking to see that justice is done to the owner. I have made it clear that, either way, the amount will be made up. In one case it will not be necessary, because already the colliery owner will have got more than he was entitled to, and

that amount will not be reclaimed, but in the other case where there is a difference between revenue and interest payments, the difference will be made up, so that in the end it will even out all transactions.

Mr. Hale:: I only want to say that the alteration in this Clause deals with the point I raised a little earlier in the afternoon. It now makes intelligible what was completely unintelligible before. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is not here because he deserves the congratulations of the Committee on securing the lucidity which is now made.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. Macmillan:: This Clause, to reconsider which we have to recommit this Bill, has now been moulded and shaped by the joint efforts of the Committee over a period of time which is very long, but not excessive for so important a matter. I think it has proved to some hon. Members, who appear to have the idea that the Committee stages of some Bills are not important, even from the Government point of view, how delicate and difficult a thing of this kind can be, and how necessary it is that each stage of our proceedings should be deliberate and clear. In this case we have not yet been able to start the Report stage of this Bill. I think we ought to pay tribute to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the good humour and patience with which, as always, he has explained to us the very complicated series of Amendments which he has had to move this afternoon. Of course, we have been assisted by a number of professional speakers from both sides of the Committee, who have shown, I am delighted to say, as an amateur, that the animosity which they have against each other as professionals, far outweighs any party division. The only people we have not had here to assist us from a professional angle, are those whom the House of Commons normally expects to be present on an occasion of this kind—those specially appointed as Law Officers of the Crown. But I realise that there are other aspirants who, if they are negligent of their duties——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont):: I find it difficult to discover, in this Clause, the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman is now referring.

Mr. Macmillan:: This Clause, from the point of view of myself and my hon. Friends who have studied this matter, is an improvement on that which left the Committee upstairs. I am grateful to the Minister for having met many of the points we raised. The Clause is an improvement in two important respects. It clarifies the Surtax situation, and it ensures that the interim payments, whether paid during the first two years, or paid en bloc at the end of the final assessment, shall be cash payments if they are not payments in stock. Those are two important concessions, but this Clause is still open, as it is drawn, to an objection. The Clause is entitled, "Interim income pending satisfaction of compensation." But what it does is to provide interim payments during two years and nothing else. The Minister must not think that we are moved by any consideration other than the old-fashioned consideration of justice and equity as between the taxpayer on the one hand, and the claimant on the other. Therefore we are left with the possibility, indeed, the considerable probability, that a large number of people will have no income during a period which may last for five or six years. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "We want to stimulate people to get on with the valuations. They should not deal with valuation in a leisurely way." But it is not the people who will get the receipts who will hold it up. It is the necessarily long and complicated machinery of valuation, which we have seen operating in connection with a much less difficult subject—mining royalties. That took a great deal more than two years. It is more than likely, having regard to the difficulties of the system of valuation, which we think unnecessarily complicated, that the global, regional and individual valuation, with the business of scaling it up and down, will mean that the lawyers, accountants and experts, between them, will keep it running for a great deal more than two years. During that time there will be no actual cash income for the shareholders, large or small, of the companies concerned.
I know it is not fashionable to take much regard of individual rights these

days, but a large number of people will be almost entirely dependent upon the income which they receive from small holdings in colliery undertakings. The Committee should not forget the very wide range of industry which the Bill now covers. The Board could enter into an immense range of industries, and I do not think it is right that there should be a situation—quite apart from whether it is a good or bad thing to have national ownership—where, having accepted the principle of compensation, a number of harmless people, who may have invested their savings in these undertakings, should be without income. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy our anxieties. He may tell us that by Clause 18 (3) something might be done in that regard, but I am not sure how far that really goes and what use is intended to be made of it. The Subsection states:

"Provision may be made by regulations for authorising the partial satisfaction of such compensation before the determination of the amount thereof has been completed.
Therefore, it is arguable that if it takes a long time, some of the capital compensation would be payable to the undertaker, and that in respect of the interest payable on that capital it could distribute some form of income to its shareholders. I take it that that is intended to deal only with capital repayment, not interim income. Therefore, that does not deal with the question of interim income. In that case, it is true that if a considerable proportion of the capital were given ahead of time, so to speak, that would itself produce income which could be distributed to the shareholders. That, to some extent, would meet my point, but if we are to rely on that we shall be still more confused. I thought that was meant to deal with the rather exceptional case. If, over a wide field, it becomes clear that valuations will not be carried through in two years then it would be very disturbing to the whole machinery to use that Clause to make a large number of partial distributions to every individual firm.
I feel that we should register our view that conditions should not arise in any industry, large or small, which the Government elects to put under national ownership, where people are left without any possibility of obtaining any income at all. If the Minister can tell us that that cannot arise we shall feel more satisfied. We readily admit that very considerable


improvement has been made to the Clause as it has been redrawn, but we still wish to raise this major point of principle.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell:: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has expressed satisfaction with the amended form of the Clause and agrees that it is consistent with the assurance I gave during the Committee proceedings, that we should take account of the submissions made by Members opposite. That we have done. On the whole it is my view that while we cannot expect right hon. and hon. Members opposite, or persons who are to be recipients of compensation, to be wholly satisfied, we have gone a long way to appease those who sought compensation, in respect of interim payments, on a higher and extended scale. It was my intention from the outset to treat the colliery owners and the owners of subsidiary undertakings as fairly and as reasonably as the circumstances permitted. That we have sought to do.
I am particularly in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in what he said about my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. It was by no means an easy task to pilot the financial Clauses through the Committee, and it was far from easy to deal with what are called the drafting and consequential minor Amendments. We are indebted to my hon. Friend for his patience—he has much more patience than I have—and in particular his lucidity in explaining highly complex Amendments. But the fact is that the Bill is highly complex in character. That is in the nature of the case. As I informed the Committee frequently during the 18 days of its proceedings, this Bill is of an experimental character, and I doubt whether the Parliamentary Draftsmen have ever encountered such heavy weather as on this particular occasion. It was, therefore, necessary to recast the Bill in many particulars. I make no apology for that. It is a common Parliamentary practice; certainly, it has been a common practice during the years I have been a Member of the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite commented on the absence of the Law Officers. There is a reason for that. Both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are engaged in legal cases of considerable importance. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General gave me an assur-

ance that he would try to be here at about six o'clock, but in any event, we did not anticipate any serious legal argument, and so far there has been none.

Mr. Macmillan:: What about the contradictions?

Mr. Shinwell:: Contradictions are not peculiar to the legal fraternity. There are laymen in the Committee who frequently contradict one another. We have got to make the best of a bad job. [Interruption.] When I say we have got to make the best of a bad job, I would remind hon. Members opposite that during the Committee stage the Government had to make the best of the bad job which presented itself to the minds of hon. Members opposite, sometimes quite wrongly. When points have been clarified, hon. Members have been ready to respond; they have seen the light. We have on the whole managed successfully, without the presence of the Law Officers, but later on, when we reach intricate points of legal complexity, no doubt we shall appreciate the assistance of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General.
Let me come now to the substance of the Clause, and deal briefly with the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman. The gravamen of the charge against the Government in respect of Clause 21 is that, although we are providing for interim payments over a period of two years—which, by the way, are cash payments, to which no objection can be raised—and have now decided, in the amended form of the Clause, to provide interest payments in cash to those who prefer to await the interest payments accompanied by the compensation, hon. Members opposite think this is insufficient for the purpose. I understand it is the desire of hon. Members opposite that we should, in this Clause, provide for interim payments until the final completion of compensation. I think we have gone a long way in providing the interim payments over a period of two years. If we had decided, as hon. Members opposite wish us to do, to provide interim payments in cash without any specified limits, it would have been a stimulus to the recipients of compensation to haggle and bargain at great length over a long period of years, well knowing that they were receiving cash payments. I will come to the question of haggling and bargaining


in a moment or two. I am very certain that would have happened.
It is our desire to expedite the valuation proceedings. Hon. Members opposite have not raised the matter on this Clause, but during the Committee stage they suggested frequently that the valuation proceedings would be prolonged, and indeed, I think the right hon. Gentleman did make some reference to it in his speech. They based that allegation on the experience with regard to the royalties valuation boards. We have derived much experience from the proceedings of the valuation boards responsible for royalties, and it is by no means improbable that the valuation proceedings will be expedited because of the experience so gained, and because we shall afford every encouragement to the valuation boards to reach a final conclusion. One of the difficulties that presents itself is not that the Government will seek to impede the proceedings of the valuation boards—the Government would derive no advantage from that process—but that the colliery undertakings in a particular area, who are to be the ultimate recipients of the compensation and who will be subject to decisions of the local valuation boards, may be at variance on the terms of the allocations, bargaining against each other. I understand that the most distinguished members of the legal fraternity in this country—no doubt many of them in the House—have been briefed already for proceedings that are in contemplation.
This will present a difficulty. In order to avoid the prolongation of valuation proceedings, we have decided that the interim payments should not be extended beyond the period of two years. This imposes no severe hardship on the majority of colliery undertakings. They have reserves; many of them have huge reserves. It is alleged frequently that they are in a parlous financial condition, but in fact many of the colliery undertakings are well-to-do. I would observe, in passing, that so well-to-do are they, in the opinion of speculators, that the shares of colliery undertakings are on the rise, which, by the way, does not justify the connotation, in respect of the nationalisation project, that nationalisation has the effect of depreciating the value of the shares of colliery undertakings. Only last week I noticed that colliery shares had increased, which is very satisfactory from the standpoint of certain individuals, but

at any rate it does not denote that the colliery undertakings are without substantial reserves, which, in addition to the interim payment over the period of two years, will enable them to tide themselves over any difficulties. If such a difficulty should emerge, as the right hon. Gentleman envisaged, I would direct his attention, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already done, to Clause 18 (3) which, in our view, provides the solution.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked whether this is not wedded to the ultimate amount of compensation. It is wedded to the ultimate determination of the amount of compensation to be paid, but if a colliery undertaking or a subsidiary undertaking becomes involved in difficulties or, perhaps, is subject to pressure by shareholders as may well be the case—although in parentheses I would say that pressure on the part of the shareholders may help to expedite the valuation proceedings—if they come to the Treasury and ask for some immediate payment on account, that can be provided, so that the position of the colliery undertakings and the subsidiary undertakings has been safeguarded In the circumstances, I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has any substantial ground for complaint. We have sought to be fair in this matter. I have been under pressure from certain quarters not to afford compensation at all. Hon. Members opposite must not be under any illusion; there is a substantial body of opinion in this country which is opposed to compensation.

Mr. Jenninǵs:: Confiscation.

Mr. Shinwell:: Surely that is the obvious implication, and indeed there was a time in the Labour Movement when compensation was regarded as a mistaken policy. We are much more reasonable nowadays, but we must not be too generous with public money. An hon. Member who is no longer in his place but who waxes eloquent on the legal aspect of this Bill gave us two speeches in the course of our Debate. In one of them he said we must safeguard the interests of the taxpayer and then, not long afterwards, conveniently forgetting all he had said, he put up a case for the colliery undertakings. This is very difficult to understand. I think on the whole we have been reasonable—I will not say more reasonable than we should have been—


and we were anxious to be so from the start. The right hon. Gentleman did indicate that we had become more reasonable, more amenable, more responsive, more resilient, more flexible and so on—he did not use all those words, but I heard them in the Committee proceedings from one side or the other—because of the arguments advanced by his hon. friends.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: Because of the Government's growing difficulties.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell:: The right hon. Gentleman ejaculates, "Because of the Government's growing difficulties" Right hon. Members opposite talk about us losing a Minister, but they lost a Government. In all the circumstances we have effected a much more reasonable Clause and one that will, I think, placate the colliery interests outside and which is, I fancy, appreciated by hon. Members opposite. We have gone much farther than any of them in the heat of the proceedings on the Committee stage expected we would go. Having gone so far I hope hon. Members will extend a vote of thanks to the Government for their conciliatory attitude, whatever the confiscators may care to say.

Mr. Jenninǵs:: I should like to register a protest against this Clause for a variety of reasons. After listening to the right hon. Gentleman's discussion of confiscation, I think it is rather staggering talk, because confiscation may lead to a great many other difficulties. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman and those behind him who are in favour of such a principle to go very carefully along that line. Otherwise, grave difficulties might exist for more people than they at present think. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: a certain amount of good has been put into this Bill, and some small Amendments have been made since this Clause was in Committee, but these have not done a great deal. There are many points on which criticism of this Clause can be brought forward. I was very much alarmed to hear the Minister say this afternoon that he is not prepared to place the regulations on the Table of the House of Commons.

Mr. Shinwell:: With great respect, no Minister could possibly say such a thing.

Regulations in this or any other Bill must be laid before the House of Commons.

Mr. Jenninǵs:: I am sorry, I should have said Treasury orders.

Mr. Shinwell:: They are another matter.

Mr. Jenninǵs:: The House is entitled to know exactly what is taking place in that respect. In addition, we have had no answer, except in an offhanded way, as to why interest is not being paid right up to the date of the payment of full compensation. It has been suggested—and I remember the hon. Gentleman from the Treasury bringing it forward as a reason in Committee—that we must fix a date, and he put two years as a fair date. When he was pressed why he suggested two years, he replied that it was in order to bring the right sort of pressure—he was careful not to say "wrongful" pressure—on the negotiators to hurry up with the negotiations and have the compensation settled. It seems to me that the people who will have least to do with the negotiations will be the owners themselves. They will employ professional people and the Government will have their representatives, and the pressure that is brought to bear on those people will not affect the owners because the matter will be out of their hands. The only way they will be affected is that they are to lose an interim payment after a period of two years. It does seem to me, therefore, that it is a somewhat "catch as catch can" business so far as the owners are concerned, except that they are not in the contest at all and are being squeezed out of this interim payment after a period of two years.
There is another thing that strikes me about this. The Government have claimed that they are trying to be fair and are giving this interim payment. They are taking over property and they propose to give colliery companies one half of the annual value of the property over a period. On what basis do they propose to give the owners one half as an interim payment? Why not give the whole value of their undertaking? It is their undertaking which is earning the money. For the life of me I cannot see why the Government cut the income of the colliery undertakings exactly by a half. There cannot be any fairness in that. The Clause tries to do the almost impossible thing. It is badly


drafted and it has been badly subjected to a great deal of Amendment. It is trying to whitewash a position which is thoroughly unfair in order to bolster up a proceeding which will react on the country at a later stage.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead):: I intervene on only two small points. The first is that I gather that the real reason why payment cannot go on after the first two years is that that might complicate the negotiations. That was the answer given to our questions. Are we to understand that those negotiations will not take place for two years? What is to happen during the first two years? If the payments complicate negotiations at all, surely they will do so as much during the first two years as afterwards. The second point is that I think this is a matter of being hard not only upon colliery undertakings but upon small shareholders. One hesitates to bring up the poor widow as an illustration, but it is a fact that with colliery concerns, as with other businesses, there are people who work in them and live near them, and have watched them grow. They see those undertakings every day, and they put their savings into them. When they retire, practically all their savings are wrapped up in one concern. Upon those savings they depend for supplementing their old age or other pension. In this case, for two years they are to suffer hardship, and after that they get nothing in income. Those people will be placed in a very awkward position. I brought these arguments up in the Committee, and am sorry to have to repeat them. If the Committee stage had been down here, it would not have been necessary to repeat them. I should like to have an answer to these points: What is to happen in the first two years? Will there not be hardship to the small shareholder?

Major Roberts:: I wish to raise three points. The first is on the question of stimulation, to which the Minister referred upstairs and again this afternoon. I consider it entirely fallacious to say that there will be a lag in settling compensation matters. I can say quite frankly that the stimulus will be provided by those who want to get their money, because of their fear of inflation under the present economic regime Every serious minded person will say that if there is some money coming to him the sooner it comes

the better. That in itself will be quite sufficient stimulus to make people hurry up. The point arises very much. The suggestion of the Minister is that there will be prolongation. My answer is that there will not.

Mr. Shinwell:: Surely the hon. and gallant Member realises what he is saying. He says that there will be such a desire to have the money that people will hurry up. Very well. If at the end of two years they have hurried up so successfully that the matter has been disposed of, his argument no longer applies.

Major Roberts:: I was merely answering the question that the Minister raised. He said there was likely to be delay in the payment of compensation. The second point that the Minister mentioned related to our experience in the valuation of royalties. I seriously suggest to him that the experience will be of standard tonnage arbitration. He may recall that everybody had to go in and try to get money out of the pool. That process went on for a very long time. I think that the method of putting so much into the pool and then letting everybody get what he can is most unreasonable.
My third point has been well demonstrated. It is that the Clause has been very clumsily and hurriedly drafted. The Minister has addressed an argument upon the vital point of difference, which is how a colliery company will get its compensation after the two-year period has elapsed. I am now referring not to the colliery companies so much as to those who are in a needy position The answer which the Government give is that those people come under Clause 18 (3). That is the most clumsy way of doing it. In whatever way compensation is assessed, no heavy amount of compensation could possibly he paid by the Treasury. I doubt whether they can, in fairness, give half of what they think it might be. Therefore the only cash interest which will be available for the colliery companies is interest on about half the amount of compensation. In most cases the amount will be quite inconsequential. I suggest to the Minister that there are no political differences in this matter. There is a simple solution to the problem and he has only to look at the Order Paper to see what it is.

Mr. John R. Thomas (Dover):: There is a difference between the payment to be


made under Clause 21 and the income accruing after two years. The hon. and gallant Member opposite suggested that people who went into the second year might get no income, but income will accrue, and will be eventually paid.

Hon. Members:: Speak up.

Colonel Clarke:: I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, but what I am saying is that the poor person who is dependent upon it will not be able to get it.

Mr. Thomas:: The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) referred to payments of income, and I am trying to deal with that point. I think the Government have met the case which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, and that advances may be obtained both as capital and as income.

Mr. McKie:: What is the poor shareholder to live on in between, if there is no other source of income?

Mr. Thomas:: I was just coming to that point. I have tried to demonstrate that the income will accrue. Therefore there is provision that an advance may be made under the Bill for the total accruing income or part of it. In my submission that argument does not apply. I recognise that the Government have fully met the point put forward by the Opposition.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams:: Just now the Minister asked for a vote of thanks for some purpose or other, but I cannot possibly let the hon. Gentleman's speech go without saying how deeply I appreciate the fact that he has intervened in the Debate. After the complete lack of any form of coherence, I do appreciate the fact that he has come and given us a little light on the matter, and I only hope that, as the Government are so feeble on this matter, in future we shall have more help, which we shall all appreciate, from the back benchers behind them.

An Hon. Member:: A gramophone record.

Mr. McKie:: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member opposite to, compare the speech of my hon. Friend with a gramophone record?

An Hon. Member:: Five thousand copies.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 120.

Division No. 153.
AYES
6.33 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Deer, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Burden, T. W.
Delargy, Captain H. J



Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burke, W. A.
Diamond, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Dodds, N. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Douglas, F. C. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Callaghan, James

Driberg, T. E. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Ayles, W. H.
Chamberlain R. A.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Champion A. J.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Chater, D.
Dye, S.


Baird, Capt. J.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. 


Balfour, A.
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Edelman, M. 


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Barstow, P. G.
Cobb, F. A.
Edwards, N. (Carephilly)


Barton, C.
Cocks, F, S.
Edwards W. J. (Whitechapel)


Battley, J. R.
Coldrick, W.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Collick, P.
Ewart, R.


Benson, G.
Collindridge, F.
Follick, M.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Collins, V. J.

Foot, M. M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Binns, J.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
De la Bere, R.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Astor, Hon M.
Digby, Maj. S. W.
Naughton, S. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Dodds-Parker, A. D
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Baxter, A. B.
Draysen, G. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Birch, Nigel
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)


Bossom, A. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Hon. A.


Bower, N.
Eccles, D. M.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hurd, A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'flr'n W'Id'n)
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Challen, C.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Jennings, R.


Channon, H.
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Joynson-Hicks Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Keeling, E. H


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
George, Maj. Rt. Ho. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Cooper-Key, E. M
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Glyn, Sir R.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Blackburn, A. R.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gibbins, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Corverdale, Viscount
Gilzean, A.


Boardman, H.
Cove, W. G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)



Bottomley, A. G.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gooch, E. G.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Daggar, G.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Bowles, F. G.
Daines, P.
Granville, E. (Eye)


Brandock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l Excn'ge)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Wakefield)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Clement (Montegomery)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grenfell, D> R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, C. F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Paneras, S. W.)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Moody, A. S
Snow, Capt J. W


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Solley, L. J


Gunter, Capt R. J
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W


Guy, W. H.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J A


Hall, W. G. (Cobra Valley)
Moyle, A
Stamford, W


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.
Steele, T


Harrison, J
Naylor, T. E
Stephen. C.


Hastings, Dr Somerville
Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradbrd, N.)
Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.)


Haworth, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Strachey, J.


Herbison, Miss M
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Stress, Dr B


Hicks, G.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Stubbs, A E.


Hobson, C R
Oldfield, W. H
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Holman, P
Oliver, G. H.
Swinger, Capt. S


Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M
Symonds, Maj A L


Horabin, T L
Paget, R. T
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hoy, J.
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F
Taylor, Dr S (Barnet)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G A
Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Parker, J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushclifle)
Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Irving, W. J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thorneycroft H


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A
Pearson, A
Thurtle, E.


Janner, B.
Pearl, Capt I F
Tiffany, S


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Perrins, W
Titterington, M. t


Jones, D. T. (Hartle pools)
Piratin, P
Tolley, L


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
Turner-Samuels, M


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Keenan, W
Popplewell, E.
Vernon, Maj W. F


Kenyon, C
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Viant, S. P.


Key, C. W
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wadsworth, G.


Kinley, J.
Price M. P.
Walkden, E.


Kirby, B. V
Pritt, D. N.
Walker, G. H.


Lang, G.
Pryde, D. J.
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Warbey, W. N.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Ranger, J.
Weitzman, D.


Leslie, J. R.
Rankin, J
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Levy, B. W.

Reeves, J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Westwood, Rt Hon. J


Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Lipson, D. L.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Robens, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lyne, A. W.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


McAdam, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


McAllister, G.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


McEntee, V. La T
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


McGhee, H. G
Segal, Dr. S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mack, J. D
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)


McKay, J. (Wal'send)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Williams, D. J. (Heath)


McLeavy, F.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Macpherson, T (Romford)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Maltalieu, J. P. W
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williamson, T.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Shurmer, P.
Willis, E.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Silverman, J (Erdington)
Woodburn, A.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Woods, G. S.


Marquand, H. A.
Simmons, C. J.
Yates, V. F.


Marshall, F (Brightside)
Skeffington, A. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, F
Skinnard, F. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)



Mikardo, Ian
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Mr. Joseph Hendersm and


Monslow, W.
Smith, T. (Normanlon)
Mr Hannan.

Linstead, H. N.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Stuart, Rt Hon. J


Low, Brig. A. R. W
Noble, Comdr. A H. P
Studholme, H G


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Nutting, Anthony
Sutcliffe, H.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)


McCallum, Maj. D.
Peake, Rt Hon O.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Macdonald, Capt. Sir P (I of Wight)
Pickthorn, K
Thornton-kemsley, C N


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Poole, 0 B. S (0swestry)
Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F


Maelay, Hon. J S
Prescott, Stanley
Turton, R. H


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Rayner, Brig. R
Walker-Smith, D.


Maitland, Comdr. J W
Renton, D.
Ward, Hon G R


Manningham-Buller, R E
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Marples, A. E
Ross, Sir R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)



Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Willink, Rt. Hon. H U


Maude, J C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mellor, Sir J.
Spearman, A C. M.
Young, Sir A S. L (Partick)


Molson, A. H. E
Stanley, Rt. Hon. 0.



Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison. Rt. Hn, W. S (Cirencester)
Strauss. H G. (Com. Eng, Univ'sities)
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Transfer of interests in patents and designs)

(1) The following assets, namely, proprietary interests of colliery concerns and of Class A and Class B subsidiaries thereof in patents for inventions intended for use or capable of being used for or in connection with colliery production activities, and in copyrights in registered designs intended for application or capable of being applied to articles adapted for use for or in connection with such activities, shall be subject to the following provision, that is to say, the Board and the owner thereof shall each have the option to require that any such assets shall vest in the Board, exercisable by notice in writing given to the other, and unless the party to whom the notice is given (whether the owner or the Board) gives to the other a counter-notice in writing objecting, as respects all or any of the assets to which the original notice relates, to the vesting thereof in the Board, the assets shall vest in the Board on the first day of the month next after that in which the notice is given:

Provided that if the notice is given before the primary vesting date, the vesting shall be on that date.

(2) Where a counter-notice is given as mentioned in the preceding Subsection, the question whether the assets as to which objection is made, or any of them, are to vest in the Board shall be determined by arbitration under this Act.

In considering any question which is to be determined by arbitration under this Subsection the arbitrator shall have regard to the matters to which he is required by Subsection (3) of Section five of this Act to have regard in considering a question which is to be determined by arbitration thereunder.

(3) If, upon a reference under the last preceding Subsection where the exercise of the option in question is by the Board, the arbitrator is of opinion with respect to any patent or copyright which is the subject of the reference that the Board ought to be enabled to do all or any of the following things in relation to the invention which is the subject of the patent, namely, to make, use, exercise or vend it, or ought to be enabled to apply the design which is the subject of the copyright, as the case may he but that the proprietary interest in the patent or copyright ought not to vest in the Board, he shall have power by his award to grant to the Board a licence under the patent or copyright (not being an exclusive licence) on such terms as may be settled by him and specified in the award, being terms appearing to him to be such as would be agreed upon between a willing grantor and a willing grantee.

(4) An award granting a licence under the preceding Subsection shall, without prejudice to any other method of enforcement, operate as if it were embodied in a deed granting the licence which the owner of the proprietary interest in the patent or copyright and all other parties having any interest therein had executed with full capacity so to do, and the award shall operate to take way from any such party any right in relation thereto the exercise whereof would be inconsistent with the exercise of the licence in accordance with and subject to the terms on which it is granted.

(5) Where the award of the arbitrator under Subsection (2) of this Section is that a proprietary interest in a patent or copyright is to vest in the Board the date of its vesting shall be such as it would have been if the original notice had been given on the date of the award.

(6) Subsections (1), (2) and (5) of this Section shall apply to interests of colliery concerns and Class A subsidiaries thereof in such patents and copyrights as are mentioned in the said Subsection (1), being interests subsisting by virtue of licences, as they apply to proprietary interests.

(7) Subsections (4) to (7) of Section five of this Act, shall, with the requisite modifications apply for the purposes of this Section as they apply for the purposes of that Section.

(8) The Minister may by regulations make such provision supplementary to or consequential on the provisions of this Section as appears to him to be necessary or expedient, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this Subsection, provision may be made by regulations made thereunder for adapting the terms of licences to changes consequent on the passing of this Act in the circumstances in which they will fall to be exercised


after the date of a transfer of interests subsisting by virtue thereof.

(9) In this Section the expression "proprietary interest," in relation to a patent, means the interest of a person whose name is for the time being entered in the register of patents as the grantee or proprietor of the patent or as one of two or more grantees or proprietors thereof, and, in relation to a registered design, means the interest of a person whose name is for the time being entered in the register of designs as the proprietor of the design or as one of two or more proprietors thereof, and references in this section to colliery production activities and to subsidiaries of colliery concerns shall be construed in accordance with the relevant definitions contained in the First Schedule to this Act.

(10) A patentee shall not be deemed to be precluded from making to the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks a request under Section twenty-four of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, for a patent to be indorsed with the words "licences of right" by reason of a licence having been granted under the patent under this Section. —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I should call the attention of the Committee to a misprint in line 4 on page 1458 of the Order Paper. Instead of the words "concerns and Class A subsidiaries", it should read "concerns and of Class A and Class B subsidiaries". The wording will then correspond with the same words which appear at the beginning of the Clause.
This new Clause is moved because paragraph 7 of the First Schedule, which automatically vests in the Board the interests of colliery concerns and Class A subsidiaries in patents and trade marks, was found to be defective. It did not, for example, include copyrights in registered designs. Its provisions, in the view of many, were too drastic with regard to patents, and it treated trade marks as much too important a matter. The whole subject has now been reviewed and, as a result I am in consequence, moving this new Clause on behalf of my right hon. Friend. On paper, I must admit the new Clause looks rather formidable but in actual fact the effect of it is small.
6.45 p.m.
To begin with, so far as the copyrights are concerned, it has now been decided to provide for vesting in the Board copyrights in registered designs, and as they

are similar to patents and the same provisions should apply equally to both, both have been included in this New Clause. The Clause also provides that the interests of colliery concerns and of Class A and Class B subsidiaries in patents and in copyrights in registered designs are under the New Clause to be transferred at the option of either the Board or the owners of the interests, subject to arbitration should one or other of the parties object. If arbitration arises because objection is made to the exercise of its option by the Board, requiring a transfer to it of the proprietary interest in a patent or copyright, and as a result the arbitrator decides that the patent or copyright should not be vested in the Board but that nevertheless the Board ought to have certain rights over it, in order to use it, he may if he thinks fit allow the Board to use that copyright or patent under licence on such terms as he may, in his wisdom, lay down. As to terms, he must, under the New Clause, be guided by what, in his view, are likely to be the terms arrived at between a willing grantor to a willing grantee. This, in the view of my right hon. Friend, provides a halfway house between vesting the patent or copyright in the Board and leaving it with the colliery concern. It is a necessary provision since colliery concerns, and particularly composite concerns, may have a patent which could be used to great advantage in relation to other activities which do not pass to the the Board under the Bill.
The Clause is divided into Subsections. Subsections (1), (2) and (5) are, I will not say a rehash, but an amalgam of Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 5 which deals with the transfer to the Board of assets generally. Subsection (4) of our New Clause is merely an ancilliary provision and deals with the effect of an award granting a licence under Subsection (3). Subsection (io), to which I should also call attention, provides that when a licence has been granted to the Board under a patent, the patentee shall not be precluded from making a request to the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the patent to be endorsed "licences of right." Trade marks, which also are dealt with under this new Clause, are relatively unimportant and are in our view definitely more suitable for the option procedure


than for automatic vesting, and provision is taken, as hon. Members will see, for the option machinery to be applied to the vesting of trade marks just as they are to be applied to copyrights in designs and patents. In conclusion, I think this Clause meets generally some of the criticisms which were made when we were dealing with this matter in Committee. We have done our best to meet those criticisms where we thought there was something in them, and, that being so, I hope that without too much discussion —as we have a great number of Amendments to get through—the Committee will allow us to have this Clause.

Sir J. Mellor:: On a point of Order. Has a manuscript Amendment been moved to correct what the Financial Secretary described as a misprint in line 4 on page 1458 of the Amendment Paper?

The Chairman:: No, the circumstances were mentioned by the Financial Secretary, who moved the new Clause in the amended, or correct, form.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I took occasion to indicate that there was this printer's error, and if hon. Members saw no objection, and the Chair saw no objection, I thought it would save time to move the new Clause in corrected form.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: With regard to the minor point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), which was a perfectly good point, the Minister was kind enough to advise me beforehand that the mistake had been made, and I thought that it could be dealt with in this way. It is purely a printer's or a verbal error. I see that the Attorney-General is now with us.

Captain Crookshank:: Better late than never.

Mr. Macmillan:: The Attorney-General is back from his weekend at Eastbourne where he described the Opposition as "reckless and hysterical." I think he will not regard it as hysterical on my part, or reckless, if I ask one or two questions on this new Clause. We have had no opportunity of discussing it, and it is part of the general scandal of the way in which proceedings are going on on this Bill. Here is a Clause which occupies two pages of

printed matter. I challenge any hon. Member of the Committee clearly to understand it from the explanation given by the Financial Secretary. I would offer a small prize to hon. Members opposite to rise and take part in these proceedings. I am not blaming them, but we who are allowed to see these Amendments only a day or two before discussing them, find ourselves in difficulties. It is part of the reckless and hysterical rate of legislating.
I have tried to understand the Clause during the Saturday and Sunday we were given in which to study the matter. It takes out the particular class of asset from those transferred without option to the Board. Instead of being in Part I of the first Schedule, the patent copyright designs and trade marks are not automatically transferred to the Board. They fall out of that category of automatic transfer. That clearly is important and just. We welcome it, and thank the Government for making the alteration. It is clear that these patents, copyrights, trade marks and designs might be valuable to the concerns for many processes not transferred to the Board. Therefore it is obviously fair that they should retain the rights of their designs for use for other purposes which they are still allowed by a beneficent Government to carry on.
What I am not quite sure of are the first four Subsections of this Clause, which the Financial Secretary said was a "rehash" of Clause 5 which deals with the transfer of assets. I would not have ventured to use a word so derogatory, nor do I think it is quite accurate. What I think he meant was that they apply the rules laid down in Clause 5 which apply generally in the transfer of assets. Is that right?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: indicated assent.

Mr. Macmillan:: As I understand it the rights in these patents or copyrights will remain in the concern, that is the actual ownership of the rights, but the Board if it wishes to use them will have the right of going to arbitration?

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross):: That is if arbitration has gone against the Board.

Mr. Macmillan:: It may be that under arbitration the whole will be transferred. What has to be settled is whether the sole right is given or whether it is transferred in toto to the Board. Suppos-


ing the arbitration decides to leave the actual rights with the proprietor, then the designs can be given by the arbitrator to the Board to use. Can the sole licence to use, or licence to use be given? That is a distinction on which I would like an answer. There is in the ordinary patent or copyright a distinction between the sole right to reproduce, or the right to reproduce. I wish to know whether the arbitrator can give to the Board the sole right, or merely the right. I am not a lawyer, but I want to know whether these words mean that or not. There is a distinction which would allow the proprietors to use the right for themselves for other purposes, or to sublet it in the ordinary way to other users.

The Attorney-General:: Subsection (10).

Mr. Macmillan:: Is he given a choice of transferring? Can he transfer the sole right or not? I understand that the arbitrator can decide to transfer to the Board or can give the sole rights to the proprietor. If he decides to give the sole rights to the Board, can the original proprietors or anyone else through arbitration use the patent or design? Is it a two-way traffic? If the rights are left to the proprietors, can the Board have a licence or if the rights are transferred, can the Board have a licence to use them? We are grateful for the Clause as a whole because it meets the point raised in Committee that these rights ought to be taken out of the Schedule of automatic transfers without option, and put into a Schedule where the automatic transfer operates.

7.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General:: The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has shown such a complete mastery of the provisions of this new Clause that his opening observations about the impossibility of dealing with these matters owing to the shortness of time was, perhaps, a little hysterical. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated exactly correctly the effect of the Clause. There is no power for the arbitrator to give an exclusive licence, indeed the patentee is entitled, if he so desires, to have the patent endorsed for licences as of right. The answer to the second question is that the arbitrator has no power to vest a patent in the Board and to provide that the Board must licence the old patentee.

Mr. MacMillan:: I am grateful for that point. Would not that be possible in

some cases, and a rather reasonable thing to do? Could the hon. and learned Gentleman look at it and see whether the counter position could be conveniently used?

Mr. Hale:: May I ask why it is necessary to transfer the powers from Subsection (4) to (7) of Clause 5 to this new Clause? There is power to make regulations on matters largely irrelevant to the new Clause and Clause 8 gives full powers to make Regulations. If I have not made myself clear, there are two successive Clauses involved, Clause 7 and Clause 8. Clause 8 gives the Minister the fullest power to make Regulations on this matter. Subsection (8) of the new Clause states:
The Minister may by regulations make such provision supplementary to or consequential on the provisions of this Section as appears to him to be necessary or expedient, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this Subsection, provision may be made by regulations made thereunder for adapting the terms of licences to changes consequent on the passing of this Act in the circumstances in which they will fall to be exercised after the date of a transfer of interests subsisting by virtue thereof.
The power in these words is a precise parallel to the opening words of Subsection (7) of Clause 5. In the concluding words there is no reference to the matter we are now discussing.

Mr. Turner-Samuels:: In respect to what the Attorney-General has said regarding Subsection (10), I think that the point the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has raised should be carefully looked at. The effect of the material part of the Clause in question appears to be that the decision of the arbitrator may be to refuse to grant a licence to the proprietor. Subsection (10) appears only to provide that, notwithstanding any decision of the arbitrator, a patentee shall not be deemed to be precluded from applying to the comptroller-general for a grant of licence or licences. I would therefore ask the Attorney-General to look at the matter again in the light of that view

The Attorney-General:: I have undertaken that I will look at that point.

Mr. Hale: rose——

The Attorney-General:: I will look at the hon. Gentleman's point too.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Consumers' Councils.)

(1) The Minister shall by order constitute two Councils to be called respectively Industrial Consumers' Councils and Domestic Consumers' Councils for each of such areas as he may determine for the performance of the duties imposed upon such Councils by this section.
(2) The chairman of each such Council shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, and shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(3) Each such Council shall consist of six members in addition to the chairman and such members shall be appointed by the Minister—


in the case of the Industrial Consumers' Council after consultation with and so as to ensure that there shall be one representative of the Board and one representative of each of the following interests operating within the area of the Council, namely consumers of coal for industrial purposes, consumers of coal for the production of gas, consumers of coal for the production of electricity, the railway companies, and persons engaged in organising or effecting the sale or supply of coal for these purposes;
in the case of the Domestic Consumers' Council, after consultation with and so as to ensure that there shall be one representative of the Board and one representative of the administrative counties within the area of the Council, and one representative of the county borough councils within the area of the Council, one representative of persons engaged in organising or effecting the sale or supply of coal or coke for domestic purposes, and two persons appearing to the Minister to represent the interests of consumers of coal and coke for domestic purposes.

(4) The chairman of each Council shall be appointed for a term of seven years and shall be eligible for re-appointment, and the remaining members shall be appointed for three years provided that of the original members two shall retire on the first anniversary of the constitution of the Council, and two shall retire on the second anniversary of that day. The Minister shall make regulations as to the quorum proceedings, meetings, determinations and other matters of the Councils, including the execution and proof of documents.
(5) The duties of each of the Councils constituted under this Section shall be as follows:—

to consider any questions relating to the sale or supply of coal and, in the case of domestic consumers' councils, of coke, which may be referred to the Council by the Minister;
(b) to receive and consider representations from any quarter with respect to the price, quality, quantity and the method and date of delivery of coal, and in the case of the domestic consumers' councils, of coke, by the Board or by or to persons engaged in organising and effecting the supply of coal or of coke, and in particular to consider any

allegations of discriminatory treatment between consumers or classes of consumers;
(c) when the council have considered any such questions or representations as aforesaid they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions and make such recommendations to the Minister in connection with those conclusions as they think expedient;
(d) to make representations to the Minister upon any matters within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Subsection if it appears to them to be expedient in the public interest so to do whether or not any questions have been referred or any representations made to them.

(6) On the notification or making to the Minister by any of the said councils of their conclusions or report on any matter, if it appears to him, after consultation with the Board, that a defect is disclosed in the Board's general arrangements for the production, sale or supply of coal, he may give to the Board such directions as he may think requisite for remedying the defect, and the Board shall give effect to any such directions.
(7) The said councils shall be furnished by the Minister with such accommodation and such clerks, officers and staff as appear to him, with the concurrence of the Treasury as to numbers, to be requisite for the proper discharge of their functions and the Minister shall pay to the members of the said councils such allowances and to the clerks, officers and staff of the said councils such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine and shall pay such expenses incurred by the said councils as he may so determine.
(8) Each of the said councils shall make an annual report to the Minister of their proceedings and the Minister shall cause the same to be printed and laid before each House of Parliament, together with a statement of any action which has been taken by him in consequence of any recommendations submitted by the council during the period to which the report relates.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain Crookshank:: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second lime."
If the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) was considered hysteria, I suppose the Attorney-General will consider what I have to say as hopelessly reckless, because I am about to offer some observations on behalf of consumers who under this legislation are most likely going to be in a very difficult position. We offer a new Clause to take the place of Clause 4 in the Bill as reported from the Committee. It seems to me that three major interests will be concerned with this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. First, there are the existing


owners, who are going to be concerned to the extent of disappearing altogether Secondly, there are the miners who are in dwindling numbers, but, nevertheless, will be still with us for a considerable time to come, and who get very little out of the Bill. It is still most obscure why the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. William Foster) resigned but we all suspect that it had something to do with the Bill until someone tells us to the contrary, possibly the hon. Member himself. Thirdly, there are the consumers who are affected for all time one way or another.
It has been very difficult for us who do not believe in this national ownership business, to envisage exactly what is to be the position of the ordinary consumer of coal industrially or domestically when it comes to making complaints. We thought it would have been up to the Government and the supporters of the Bill to explain first to the Committee, then to the House, and then to the nation, exactly what is to be the new status vis-à-vis the management of the industry, and whether it is in fact more the Minister or more the National Board. What is to be the status of the consumer towards the management? How will people get their complaints rectified and what are they to do if they are in difficulties, either industrially or domestically, about the quality or quantity of the coal which they purchase? The Minister, of course, attempted to deal with this problem in Clause 4 of the Bill. We thought he did not do it satisfactorily. It is obvious to ask what is the position at present. We can take, for example, any industry or an ordinary domestic consumer. If one orders coal from a certain firm—a retail firm in the latter case or a colliery or group of collieries in the former—if for one reason or another the quality changes and causes dissatisfaction, under the normal working of free enterprise one changes one's order and places it somewhere else. If it is not satisfactory one can go somewhere else until satisfaction is secured. That was the practice in the past. What we have not been able to get out of the Minister is an answer to the question, "What is to happen in the future in the case of dissatisfaction?" Perhaps the new Minister has views on that subject.
We had discussion in the Committee about rm ordinary constituent. A widow

in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) was made the target. The question was what she was to do when she got the kind of coal from her retailer which she did not like. We do not know. It is assumed that under this new national ownership there will be great powers in the Board, and possibly in their local agencies, enabling them to compel the coal consumers to take what is offered and to prohibit them from going elsewhere. We have difficulties of that kind in the food system which we have at present. It is not easy to change one's retailer. To meet this, the Minister put up a Board and two consumers' councils for the whole nation, one industrial and one domestic We do not believe that is the right way to deal with this matter If we were successful the Minister's proposals would disappear. I would like the Committee to look at our proposals in the light of those in the Bill which we reject.
The Minister says there shall be two consumers' councils, one industrial and one domestic. Each of the said councils shall have such members as the Minister thinks fit—no set number—appointed by him to represent the Board. In addition, on the industrial side there will be members whom he would appoint after consulting bodies representative of consumers of coal for industrial purposes and, on the domestic side, after consultation with bodies representing the domestic consumers' interest. Those are the two councils. They are nation wide, indeterminate in number of members. Representatives of the Board are to be on them as well as other persons unspecified representing the users, whether industrial or domestic. Their function should be to consider any matter affecting the- supply and sale of coal which forms the subject of representations made by consumers of coal or any matters which they think they ought to consider. Having done that, if any action appears to be necessary, it would be incumbent upon the councils to notify their conclusions to the Minister. Thereafter, if it appears to the Minister after consultation with the Board that there is a defect in the Board's general arrangements for the production, sale or supply of coal, then the Minister may give the Board any directions that he thinks fit to remedy the defects.


That is the layout. It seems curiously remote from the ordinary industrial undertakings and the ordinary domestic consumer. The late lamented Parliamentary Secretary, in one of the few speeches he made on the Committee stage, addressed himself to this proposal. The thought struck some of us, at least, that he said very odd things. We had been arguing that this layout in the Bill was not really a very great safeguard or protection for the industrial or domestic consumer from the new State monopoly. Then the Parliamentary Secretary blandly announced that these councils were not being set up for that purpose. They were not meant to be protection or safeguard from the monopoly. What was intended was that instead the new councils were to work with the Board on a basis of cooperation. The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks will be found in columns 303 and 304 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee. He thought the fear of hon. Members, which was quite baseless, was:
…a State monopoly will not run any industry in the interests of the community, but will exploit certain interests in the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 27th February, 1946; c. 304.]
Those were our fears. He said that could not happen because the councils will represent the public interest and the Board is charged to carry on and run this industry in the public interest. Of course, all that is quite true but it is very "highfalutin'" and high minded and very much above the level of the complaints which individuals will be found to have.
What do we suggest instead of this layout of the Minister's? We suggest that instead of having only two councils, one domestic and one industrial, the Minister should set up two councils, not for the whole nation, but in any area that he may designate for the purpose. We give the Minister power to do this because he seems to be the right person to do it. He might designate 10, 15, or 50 areas —I do not know—according to what he decides in his wisdom. We grant him wisdom, on paper, anyhow, for the purpose of legislation and because we know he will have successors. We leave it to the Minister to determine the areas in which he would set up industrial and domestic councils. We stick to the same nomenclature, and, indeed, to very much the same functions, but we ask that there

should be statutory bodies everywhere to bring the thing nearer the people than is possible with the one national consumer council. The Minister has powers inherent in his office and certainly in the Bill to set up advisory bodies. During the Committee stage he said it would be easy for him to set up subordinate advisory bodies. We want regular statutory bodies. That is why we have cast the new Clause in this form. We try to lay down the number a little more specifically. I am quite sure the learned Attorney-General will appreciate this point. We say that the chairmen of these bodies should be legal people. In our experience that is the most satisfactory arrangement. The learned Attorney-General himself has been chairman of the Catering Committee, a position which he occupied all the better for being a legal luminary. That is what I understand from his colleagues who were pleased to serve under him. It is phrased in the
common form:
The Chairman of each such Council shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, and shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
7.15 p.m.
With regard to membership, we say that in the case of the industrial consumers' councils there should be a representative of the Board, and then representatives of what seem to us to be the big five, so to speak, of the industrial consumers. They are representatives of consumers of coal for industrial purposes, for the production of gas, electricity, the railway companies, and somebody concerned with sale or supply. On the domestic side we bring it rather more into the local authority's sphere. Obviously, the representatives could be either men or women. The corresponding personnel of the domestic consumers' councils should be the representative of the Board, as before, and then one representative of the administrative counties within the area, one representative of the county borough councils within the area, someone concerned with the supply or sale, and two others whom the Minister considers representative of actual users of domestic coal. It may be that the Minister can think of somebody who ought to be consulted who is better fitted than the people we propose. In that case, we would not quarrel with him. We want to persuade the Minister to define in the Bill the kind of representa-


tives which these councils should have, bearing in mind that we do not want just one national industrial and one national domestic consumers' council. We want the pair of them in the various areas to be settled by the Minister.
We think it is important that these Councils, when established, should have some security of tenure. In the Bill there is nothing about that, and that is why we say that the chairman should be appointed for a term of seven years and should be eligible for reappointment, together with the proviso, which is common in such Bills, that some members should retire. Further, we provide that the duties of the councils in each of these areas, designated by the Minister, should be
to consider any questions relating to the sale or supply of coal and, in the case of domestic consumers' councils, of coke, which may be referred to the Council by the Minister;
Nobody, I presume, would quarrel with that. Then—
to receive and consider representations from any quarter with respect to the price, quality, quantity and the method and date of delivery of coal, and in the case of the domestic consumers' councils, of coke,
There cannot be anything wrong with that. Then, and we think this very important—
to consider any allegations of discriminatory treatment between consumers or classes of consumers;
We bring that in here because the Minister in the Committee was not very satisfactory on the subject of discrimination. The right hon. Gentleman looks surprised, but he really was not, because he said something with which we found it difficult to agree. He said the discrimination might be required. Here we are talking about consumers of the same class, which is rather a technical matter when it comes to the provision of fuel for industry, and the Minister said:
I want the Board to differentiate where it is essential to do so." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 13th February, 1946; C. 79.]
It may be that it will have to discriminate, but, if it does, it would be just as well that allegations of unfair and improper discrimination should be made somewhere, and we think that a council of the nature we describe is the right place in the first instance. I know all about how, in the long run, they may come to Parliament, but, surely, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not really want

the whole of the business of Parliament at Question time to be matters of individual coal consumers' difficulties, or even the coal difficulties of different industries? We all recognise that Parliament is the final court of appeal for every citizen of this country from every administrative act, but we do think there is need for the exercise of some common sense, otherwise our correspondence and the Order Paper of the House of Commons would be something awful.
Then we suggest that the council, after consideration, should report to the Minister and make such recommendations as they think necessary in the public interest on such matters as might come within their knowledge and purview within the exercise of their duties as a council. If there is a defect, we leave it, as the Minister does, so that he shall have power to give directions that it should be remedied. The question of staff we leave, as the Minister does, but we make one further proviso that is not in the Bill. I hope hon. Members opposite will not light-heartedly vote against the new Clause, although I daresay they will, because there is no sign of agreement with it, so far, although I hope the Minister may yet say he will accept it. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. We are fighting here a very important battle for the consumers. It is important because this is the first occasion—it may be the last—on which the State is taking over under national ownership a productive industry. That is why we must get these matters of principle settled, as far as we can, right at the start.
The final proviso is that each of these councils—I do not know how many there will be of each, and I leave that to the Minister to decide—should make an annual report to the Minister of their proceedings, and that the Minister should cause it to be printed and laid before Parliament, together with a statement of what he has done as a result of their recommendations. There is nothing very terrible in that. Indeed, the Minister did, in fact, find it most difficult to explain away, because, since this Bill was introduced- the Government has produced another Bill—the name of the right hon Gentleman is not on it—dealing with civil aviation. I am not going to discuss it, but merely point out that the Government set up under the Bill a body called the Air Transport Advisory Council. That


body is the one which is to consider—and this has some relevance to what I have been saying—any question relating to facilities for air transport or relating to the charges for such facilities. It is not the same thing as coal prices, I agree, but it has, in that sphere, something to do with it, and that council has to make an annual report to the Minister of Civil Aviation on its proceedings. We have just lifted that little Clause out of the other Bill and put it into our new Clause, because it is, in this very limited sphere, in a Bill of which we do not approve, exactly what we want.

Mr. Shinwell:: No, because there is only one council.

Captain Crookshank:: Well, is the Minister prepared to give us his one council?

Mr. Shinwell:: No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to found his case on something that appears in another Government Bill. That is what I understand he is doing. He has been arguing for a number of regional consumers' councils. The Air Transport Advisory Council is the only council to be set up under that Bill.

Captain Crookshank:: That is really no argument at all. But for the recklessness of which I was accused by the Attorney-General, I should have put my speech into words of one syllable and at dictation speed. I am not relying on anything in the Civil Aviation Bill, except to say that, in that case, the Government are setting up a council and that they are making it mandatory on that council to make annual reports to the Minister of their proceedings, which the Minister will lay before Parliament and inform Parliament what action has been taken. That is the only bit I have taken out of that Bill, and it is just as related to my case whether there is only one or there are fifty councils, my case being that there should be a report to Parliament. If the Minister defeats our new Clause, will he give us the one in the Bill, because that would help?

Mr. Shinwell:: There is no need for it

Captain Crookshank:: No need for it? Is the argument that it would be quite unnecessary that Parliament should be informed what the consumers' councils are doing about the kind of representations

made to them and the action they take on them? Really, I think the right hon. Gentleman disregards this House even more than I had feared. It seems to me that the Government are going into this great national monopoly and are not going to make any provision for informing Parliament about what is done by these two councils in the Bill and the x number of councils in our proposal as regards rectifying grievances concerning industrial or domestic consumers. If the right hon. Gentleman is not to inform Parliament about that, indeed, he is setting up an authority which is going to work in secret and which is going to throw back exactly what I am told we may in the long run see—more pressure, more work, more inquiries and Parliamentary Questions to Ministers and the Government at all times on matters of small detail which should not come here if the. organisation is right. I agree that the Minister, like all Ministers, is bound to have a, parental feeling for the words in the Bill, and, no doubt, he has been advised by those who drew it up that this is the best possible form of doing it, but I ask him to realise that, on this matter, there is a great deal in what we say—that it will be overloading the machine if only one industrial council and one domestic council should deal with the heap of difficult points that are bound to arise from the consumers' point of view.
I am not saying that the plan in our new Clause is going to alter that. There will be complaints and difficulties. but, surely, they will be handled in a more businesslike way by these two parallel councils in each area than by the national council proposed in the Bill and nothing in between, except that the Minister can receive complaints from Members of Parliament. I do not think that is a workable idea. We feel that there is a gap in the Bill and that the whole position of the consumer and purchaser of coal in this great State monopoly has not been adequately dealt with. It is no good the Minister saying that we have not thought it out. We do not think this is a good plan. It is, as the Lord President said while in the United States, a case for the nationalisers to make out their case. It is for those hon. Gentlemen who have been talking about it for years and are now putting it into legislation to explain their views on the position of the consumer.


So far, they have not done so, and I do not believe that they have any views. They have put in this common form Clause about a consumers' council because it had been done in some other legislation of far less importance than this.
I ask the Minister, whether he accepts our Clause or not, to be very receptive to the suggestion that he should amend his own Clause. as he still has the opportunity, to make certain that there will be Parliamentary reports, whether there is one or whether there are 20 or 50 councils, to say what they have done, in each area, in regard to the consideration they have given and the recommendations they have made on the questions that came before them.
I ask him at least to do that. I shall be interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say in reply. I hope the Minister will take back some of the things he said in the Committee and will accept this new Clause which is, at least, an improved safeguard for the consumers whom we all represent. When all is said and done and whatever their political views may be, we here represent every consumer whether Conservative, Liberal, Labour, Independent or whatever else they may be in our own constituencies. Their interests are all the same on a problem of this kind. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to be adamant. He has accepted a number of small Amendments so far. I trust he will accept this new Clause which is of some magnitude and importance.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Niǵel Birch (Flint):: I rise to support the remarks made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). During the Committee stage of this Bill, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) described the councils as set out in the Bill as so much "eyewash", and he was most certainly right. What we are trying to do here is to put that situation right. It all ties up with a question asked by the former Parliamentary Secretary when he was discussing this matter upstairs. He asked how an organisation which is running an industry for the public interest, could exploit anybody. l t is quite clear that the Minister considered that remark "reckless and hysterical,"

and that may be why the change has been made. It is clear that he does not agree with that. If he agrees that it is not possible for a State monopoly to exploit the consumer, he must also agree with all the demands made by the miners. But he has, quite rightly, not done so. In the past, miners have been under-privileged but they should not now be in a position to hold up the country to ransom. To prevent that happening, the Minister will need all the assistance he can get, and the main assistance will be public opinion. Public opinion should be mobilised through proper councils in which people can have confidence. What will give them confidence is full publicity. As far as I can see, there is no provision whatever in the Bill for full publicity for the proceedings of these councils and I hope we can have an absolute assurance that neither council will be prevented by the Minister from publishing anything if they think it should be published. We want an assurance that they will not be muzzled. Our proposal ensures a proper report to Parliament and proper publicity of all they do.
The next point about the councils is that they must have some authority and must inspire some confidence. The way to do that is, first, to give some security of tenure and independence to the people serving on them and, secondly—and this is very important—some representative character. As the right hon. Gentleman will see, we have put in our new Clause that there shall be certain representatives of county councils and county boroughs, thus bringing in the representative principle, especially on the consumers' side. I believe that if we can be assured that these councils will give publicity to their findings, that they will be representative, that they will consist of men of standing, independent of the Ministry, and that they will be able to rally public opinion behind justice, that that is what we want —and that is what the Minister may in future find himself very much in need of. At the moment, I do not see how the Clause in the Bill can give anybody any confidence. The words continually occur "as the Minister sees fit." Everything—how many people there are, who they are, and when they meet—is governed by "as the Minister sees fit." He may be right or wrong, but unless something is laid down which is independent of his influence and not entirely under his


thumb, no one will have any confidence whatever in these councils.
I hope that the new Parliamentary Secretary is going to reply. He was good enough to congratulate me on my maiden speech and, as a simple back bencher, I wish him well. He is admirably suited to play the dove to the Minister's eagle. When he replies, I hope he will give a serious answer to the points raised and will give his genuine opinion on whether people can have any confidence whatever in the Clause in the Bill, and whether he does not think they will have far greater confidence in the new Clause we have presented.

Mr. Hale:: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) for tabling this new Clause. We have come downstairs from nine weeks in Committee in which we were on rather a sticky wicket, but we were batting against time. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough had an entertaining time bowling his insidious lobs which added a great deal to the game. If I may change my metaphor—otherwise I shall get out of my depths soon—we saw the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) pass from incredulity to amazement, and saw his astonishment at the Clauses put forward. He found himself in a mass of words which, with his customary modesty, he said he could not understand. His brow wrinkled in incredulous astonishment and he hardly knew what we were doing.

Captain Crookshank:: Is the hon. Gentleman describing his mental attitude on the Amendment which we discussed an hour ago?

Mr. Hale:: I am telling the Committee of my attitude on the new Clause which has been tabled today. In the course of the proceedings on this Bill we have been told that we are establishing a bureaucracy and that we are spending public money. This is the first opportunity we have had of considering a new Clause tabled by the Conservative Party and it is worth our while to consider it in detail. In the first instance, I will refer to Subsection (1) to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough attaches such importance. He says that

we should have not two councils for the whole country, but X number of councils in any number of regions designated by the Minister. It is amazing that he proposes to leave that power to the Minister. May I respectfully point out that his Clause does not achieve that object, because the wording is that the Minister shall constitute councils for such areas as he may determine? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made no reference to the extraordinary cost of the many tribunals which he is about to set up, not merely for the coal industry, but presumably, for other industries which are to be nationalised undertakings, to the staffs that will have to be kept, and so on. I think it is time to consider how it is proposed that these councils should work. I have sometimes had a little sympathy with the Opposition who say that things are being left to regulation and not being put in the Bill. The Clause in the Bill which it is suggested should be omitted in favour of the proposed new Clause is a particularly modest Clause. In it the Minister takes no power to make regulations except on the limited basis set out in Clause 2 (7), in other words, regulating as to the appointment of members of the board, the proceedings and meetings and the execution of instruments. What is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's substitute for that? He says:
The Minister shall make regulations as to the quorum proceedings, meetings, determinations and other matters of the councils, including the execution and proof of documents.
I can imagine what would have happened about the words "and other matters" had we proposed them. I can imagine the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rising with real astonishment and saying: "What are 'other matters?' Those words mean the Minister can make regulations about any matter affecting the Bill." Then we come to the provision to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman paid special attention, dealing with the power of the two councils to consider "any matters." That again is not the intention. Subsection (5, d) of the proposed new Clause says:
to make representations to the Minister upon any matters within paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection.
But paragraph (a) of the Subsection refers exclusively to matters which may be referred to the council by the Minister. Paragraph (b) of the Subsection refers to


representations from any quarter Apparently, a local council may consider representations concerning our coal export policy, from the Free Church Council, from General Franco or from any body in any part of the world who cares to send a letter to the council so constituted, and this matter shall be considered by the council, reported to the Minister, reported to Parliament, brought forward in a White Paper and made the subject of debate. If that is not bureaucracy gone mad, I do not know what is, and I hope the Committee will waste little time in rejecting this proposed new Clause.

Major Lloyd Georǵe (Pembroke):: I am sorry the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) appealed to the Committee not to waste any time on this proposed new Clause, because I do not think anybody in any quarter of the Committee can suggest that this is not a matter of vital importance to the people of this country. There is no hon. Member, to whatever party he may belong, who does not think it right that the consumers of fuel in this country should be amply protected. I think the Minister himself agrees that there should be protection for the consumers, otherwise he would not have put his own Clause into the Bill. Clause is put in the Bill, presumably, for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the consumers. I am supporting the proposed new Clause because I do not think the provisions now in the Bill give the consumers any protection at all. While I am not wedded to all the words in the proposed new Clause, I think it goes much nearer to getting protection for the consumers than the existing Clause.
There are two types of consumer referred to—domestic and industrial. We are all agreed that the domestic consumer certainly deserves protection, because in so many cases he is not organised in the way that other consumers are. So far as industrial consumers are concerned, it is equally vital that they should also have protection because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, consumers on the industrial level have in the past, to the great advantage of the country, and at very large expense to themselves, installed fuel consuming appliances to burn particular types of fuel. In many cases they have put in appliances to burn fuel which, before those appliances were installed, could not be burned at all. In that way they have assisted in securing

what we all desire, the best use of the fuel resources of the country. It is very important that they should be enabled to receive the quality of coal for which their particular appliances have been adapted, at the price which they had in mind when they incurred this expenditure, because it would have a tremendous effect on the costing of whatever commodity they are responsible for.
7.45 P.m.
During the war when I was the responsible Minister, many complaints were directed to my Ministry, both from the domestic and industrial sides, as to quality and consequently as to price. But there were then difficulties, of which hon. Members will be well aware, which made it impossible for the particular qualities to which certain people had been accustomed, to he provided for those people or concerns. In particular, the question of transport in wartime made it impossible to give the same elasticity of delivery to concerns all over the country, and the difficulty with regard to labour, and screens in particular, undoubtedly led to a certain deterioration in coal. It was unavoidable because of the difficulty of blackout and the scarcity of labour. That was in war. One is entitled to expect those conditions to right themselves in normal circumstances as peace conditions return, as my right hon. Friend said. In other words if a colliery which one expected to supply could not deliver, one went to other collieries until one was satisfied. But under this Bill there will be only one supplier of coal. We know today that very strong exception is taken to attempts to change suppliers unless very good reasons indeed are given. Therefore, because ordinary methods will not be possible after this Bill becomes law, it is more than ever important that the consumers should be amply protected.
The Minister obviously appreciates that, because, in fact, he has inserted in the Bill a Clause which is designed to protect the consumer. Therefore, there is nothing between us on that. Where we part is on the question of whether that Clause, in effect, gives any protection to the consumer at all. I have no hesitation in saying that that Clause is what the Minister himself said in Committee upstairs was, in his experience of some consumers' councils, a sham.

Mr. Shinwell:: I said this proposed new Clause was a sham.

Major Lloyd Georǵe:: No, the right hon. Gentleman said that, in his experience, many consumers' councils were a sham. I say the Clause in the Bill is a complete sham from beginning to end. Let us see what the Minister can do under the Clause. This council, having been appointed, the members must consider certain questions concerning the supply and quality of coal. Where action appears to them to be requisite, it is the council's duty to notify their conclusions to the Minister. That is the first action they have to take. In fact, I think it is their only action. I am now referring to Clause 4 (3, a). We then come to the Minister's part in Subsection (5) of the same Clause, and it is rather interesting to observe——

The Chairman (Major Milner):: I must point out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to refer to Clause 4 only for the purpose of explaining the proposed new Clause.

Major Lloyd Georǵe:: I fully appreciate that, Major Milner, but the reason why we are introducing this new Clause is because the existing Clause which covers consumers does not, in fact, give the Minister the authority which we think he ought to have, neither does it give the requisite power to the consumers' councils. I was going to refer to what I said was a sham. The reason why the new Clause has been submitted is because the original Clause does not do what is necessary. I will not go into detail, but I would point out that the original Clause in the Bill, says the Minister,
may give… such directions as he may think requisite.
There are so many qualifications that 1 think there is no question at all that nothing can really be done. To show that this Clause is really only a sham, I would point out that the powers already in existence in previous Clauses give the Minister full power to give directions to the Board in the exercise of their functions, which are of a wide type Therefore, the Minister already has the powers. I am confirmed in my view that Clause in the Bill is purely a facade an I will not, in fact, give the consumers the protection which everybody wishes them to have.

I am not in the least concerned whether there should be regional councils or a central council. My own view with regard to the whole set up is that the regions are more important than the central authority. am certain that that is so, as far as the obtaining of coal is concerned at any rate. The councils that matter are the regional ones. Therefore, I am not particularly tied as to whether there are regional councils or a central council. One thing about which I am concerned—I think the most important part of this proposed new Clause —is that the report should be laid before Parliament. My right hon. and gallant Friend referred to questions coming to the Minister and so on. In my judgment the only consumers' councils worth having in this country are the Houses of Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell):: In that case, why has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman supported the new Clause?

Major Lloyd Georǵe:: Because it says that Parliament should have the report laid before it. I believe it would make a greater contribution if we had the facts presented from this body and not merely from one individual, as we should get them, of course, in the ordinary course of events, when all we can do is to put down a Question. But if we have a report from a body which is representative of industrial consumers and from a body that has knowledge of all domestic consumers, then, at least, we shall be in a position to judge whether the industrial and domestic consumers of this country really have cause for complaint or not, and whether the new arrangement, which the Minister has set up as a great experiment, is going along the right lines. As far as I can understand, the sole purpose of changing the ownership of this industry is for the national advantage. Therefore, as we are the national representatives here, we shall be able to do our duty far better if everything we ought to know about this industry, in its new set-up, is made available. As this proposed new Clause sets forth a suggestion of which I particularly approve, that a report should be laid before Parliament, I support it.

Mr. Gaitskell:: Before turning my attention to the proposed new Clause, may


I express my appreciation of the courtesy shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) earlier this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) described me as a "dove." I am not sure that that is entirely appropriate at all times. I am not sure that, so far as my home life is concerned, my family would quite take that view. As far as the present moment is concerned, I certainly am dovelike; to the extent of feeling very timid. Therefore, I hope the kindly spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman made his remarks earlier this afternoon will be continued during my speech.
On this side of the Committee we welcome the spirit which animates the proposed new Clause. We are delighted to see that the Conservative Party are so concerned about the position of consumers. It is certainly somewhat of a change. I do not want to rake over the past, but it is somewhat of a change from what happened before the war. During all those long years when the Conservative Government were in office I do not recall a single Measure which in any way attempted to protect consumers, not merely from nationalised undertakings, of which, after all, there are very few, but from the much more helpless position in which they find themselves when facing private monopolies.

Colonel Clarke:: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that after the Coal Mines Act, 1930, committees of investigation were set up for this very purpose? I do not remember them having been an outstanding success, but that was definitely done, and done by the party on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Gaitskell:: The hon. and gallant Member has answered his own point: they were not an outstanding success. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd-George) would agree that they were nothing much more than a sham.

Colonel Clarke:: That is why we are so afraid of what is to be set up now.

Mr. Gaitskell:: We are only too delighted to find the new spirit which animates the benches opposite.

Colonel Clarke:: Experience.

Mr. Gaitskell:: I must emphasise at the start that we believe there is an important difference between the position of consumers facing private monopolies and those facing a Government undertaking. In the case of the private monopoly, after all, the motive behind that is the maximisation of profits. There is no argument about that. The maximisation of profits unquestionably may lead—I do not say it will in all circumstances—such a private monopoly to exploit consumers in the most ruthless fashion. In the case of a public undertaking such as the National Coal Board, that is not the case at all. The Board will not be activated by the same motive. It is not asked to try to make the largest possible profit. It is certainly asked to cover its costs, but it is asked at the same time to act in the public interest. If it were not so to act, then there is my right hon. Friend behind me ready to step in to see that it does so act. Therefore, we cannot suppose that the gentlemen who have already been appointed to this Board will behave in the same way as a private monopoly.
We realise however that there may be a remote danger that in certain circumstances the consumers' interests would be not so fully regarded as they should be. It is for that reason, of course, that these safeguards have been introduced into the Bill. What are the safeguards? In the first place there are the councils, and the councils may influence the Minister to intervene very directly. We had the Amendment introduced during the Committee stage—I might be out of Order if I were to read it, but perhaps I might mention it—on Clause 4 (5). Then we have the Minister's power under the earlier Clause to issue directions to the Board. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke referred to that as a reason why the whole thing was a sham. Surely it is an additional safeguard; it is not a sham at all. Finally, as is surely clear, we have the right to raise questions in Parliament; incidentally, a right which would not exist if it were not for the nationalisation of the industry, and if it were not a public undertaking. I am anxious to try to explain our point of view in this, and, therefore, I would like to say what we think the position of the consumers will be under this Bill.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) made some play with the


obscurity surrounding the position of the consumers. One cannot put everything into an Act of Parliament, of course, but I do not think there is really any great difficulty about the matter. In the first place, the vast majority of complaints which the consumers have will be dealt with directly by the Board itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to suppose that in the case of an industrial undertaking no complaints were made to the undertaking. Of course they are, and all the minor matters will go that way., At the present moment hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have received comments and complaints, probably about the scarcity of coal, and complaints about unfair distribution. We realise that coal has been scarce this winter. However, that is in a very abnormal situation, and that is why they come to the Government, to Members of Parliament, because they cannot get satisfaction directly through their own suppliers. Normally, they would go to their suppliers in the first instance. Therefore, the basic mistake, if I may so describe it, which underlies the new Clause is the idea that the Board itself will entirely ignore the consumer, that there will be no possibility of consumers coming and complaining to the agents of the Board. That is completely wrong.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West):: On a point of Order. May we have some light, or soon we shall not be able to see whether there is any Opposition or not?

Mr. Gaitskell:: I turn very briefly to some of the points in the new Clause itself. It sets out a number of ways in which these councils should work, and I will deal with some of the more important differences between the new Clause and the Clause as drafted in the Bill. First of all, there is the proposal for area councils. My right hon. Friend is not necessarily against some area organisation—he made that clear during the Committee stage of the Bill—but he does feel that it is a mistake to commit ourselves at this stage to a particular form of statutory council for a number of different areas. I have already said that most of the complaints, under the Bill, will naturally be dealt with by the Board itself, but the essence of the councils, surely, will be that they pro-

vide, as it were, a channel of appeal to which the aggrieved customer goes if he does not get satisfaction from the board.
This is one type of complaint they will have: Mrs. Jones will complain that her supplier is discriminating against her and favouring Mrs. Brown down the street. The council hears about that, she says she has tried to get redress from the supplier, and the council will proceed to investigate. Incidentally, at this stage, of course, we are dealing with complaints about retail supplies. The councils are entitled to do that, although the retailers may be, and indeed presumably will be for the moment, entirely private and separate from the board. But clearly, if the council were to get a series of complaints about bad distribution in an area, that is just the sort of thing it would take up and would report to the Minister. On the other hand, there may be cases where, the board's representatives being on the council, it is possible to deal with the matter without reference to the Minister. That seems to me to be an excellent element of flexibility in the scheme.
There may, of course, again remain the questions of policy which the council will wish to consider without receiving any complaints, the whole question, for example, of whether there should be a single price charged to consumers within an area, however distant they may be from the pithead or delivery point. That is an interesting question, and a lot is to be said for and against, and that seems to be the kind of general issue which the councils may well consider. There are, therefore, two main types of points which they may refer to the Minister: points arising out of complaints which have not been settled by the Board and, as I say, these major issues of policy which they may take up themselves. I repeat that that does not seem to be any particular reason why we should suppose that an area organisation would be particularly good or useful from this point of view. It may be so; do not let us tie ourselves down to it at this stage.
I turn next to the point about the chairmen. I do not know why hon. and right hon. Members opposite are so enthusiastic about having lawyers on everything. Indeed, I really find it surprising. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth


(Mr. Bracken) would never have supported this for a moment. He cannot possibly have been consulted, because the things he says about lawyers in this House—I will not say they are unprintable, because they are printed, but they are certainly very strong. Why have lawyers? Why should not doctors occasionally be employed? Why should not businessmen occasionally be used for this purpose? This is not a matter of interpreting the law, it is a question of commonsense and good chairmanship, and I suggest, without I hope offending my hon. and learned Friend, that very often good chairmen come from other sources. We see no reason to tie ourselves down in this way, and, as I say, I find it strange that this particular suggestion should have been made.
Let us turn next to the character of the councils. The new Clause seeks to tie us down there as well, in a very precise manner. Take, for instance, the industrial consumers' council, which is to consist of:
one representative of the Board and one representative of each of the following interests operating within the area of the Council, namely, consumers of coal for industrial purposes, consumers of coal for the production of gas, consumers of coal for the production of electricity, the railway companies and persons engaged in organising or effecting the sale or supply of coal for those purposes.
Have hon. Members opposite considered the significance of their choice? Do they realise that of the four interests to he represented, three are due to be nationalised—gas, electricity and railways? It might well be that the fourth, the representatives of the industrial consumers, would be taken from the steel industry, and we should then have the extraordinary position that on those councils we should have nothing or practically nothing but representatives of nationalised industries. Is that what they want? That is where we get to from this very narrow and rigid approach to the problem, and they would be wise not to tie themselves down too much in advance. After all, they cannot be sure how far the Government will go in their nationalisation programme, and if they were to put down some other industry that, too, might become nationalised.
Even if we take the domestic consumers' council I do not think there is any particular virtue in having one representative of the administrative counties

within the area of the council and one representative of the county boroughs. It might not be such an easy task to get the counties and county boroughs to agree on the representative to act for them. We feel, again, that these are not matters on which we want to be too precise, so that if we wished to change we should have to have new legislation. It is very much the same with the other details, details of the appointments, for example. No doubt hon. Members opposite are concerned to get the best possible people to serve on these councils, and there we should entirely agree with them, but it is not necessarily the best way to go about it to say that they must serve for five years. There are all sorts of people who would prefer not to be tied down, and indeed, it is very unusual—I think I am right in saying so—to tie down members of these voluntary advisory bodies to rigid terms of service as if they formed a contract of employment.
Finally, as regards the relations with the Minister, there seems to be another really rather ridiculously rash proposal in the new Clause. In Subsection (5), paragraph (c) it is stated:
When the council have considered any such questions or representations as aforesaid they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions…
That is, for every single complaint that comes to them they have to report to the Minister about it. Could anything be more absurd? Of course, it is quite unnecessary. The whole idea of the thing is that most of them shall be settled with the representative of the board sitting there. We do not want everything to go to the Minister—I do not think my right hon. Friend does anyway—and I do not see that there would be any great advantage in having every single detail sent forward.
We feel that although no doubt the intentions behind the new Clause are really harmless, and indeed creditable to hon. Members opposite, they have not quite seen the disadvantages of the method of approach which they propose. Frankly, we do not feel that the new Clause as it stands would help in any way to strengthen the consumers' councils. It would tie the hands of the Government much too rigidly. We should not be able to make changes as we might wish to make changes in the whole set up for handling


complaints, if we agree to this; and, therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Clause.

Colonel Clarke:: May I, with deference, congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having so quickly acclimatised himself to our style of debate? Before answering him, may I first answer one or two things said by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) who, I am sorry to see, is no longer in his place? I agree with him that the lobs by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) succeed in tempting out the batsmen on the other side. I hope before long we shall see the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) in again. I think I saw him about to leave the pavilion a moment ago. Upstairs he was about to intervene on this subject when he, unfortunately, stepped outside his crease and was stumped by the Chair.
To refer now to the point of the hon. Member for Oldham about the expense of starting consumers' councils all over the country, I would point out that upstairs the Minister suggested that there would be, probably, some division of the country into districts, very much like the division that exists at present. That would limit it. The committees of investigation set up in 1930 did consist of one in each district, and one for the country as a whole, a sort of appeal committee. I do not think, therefore, that that question arises at all. Then the hon. Member for Oldham suggested that the drafting of the Opposition's draftsmen was very much at fault. However, he was, indeed, criticising the drafting of his own side, because that part of our Clause was taken straight from the Civil Aviation Bill that was brought in the other day. It was not by our draftsmen at all.
Now to answer the points put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think that our objection to what was suggested in the way of committees of investigation was so much in detail, but rather to their contact with the actual consumer: our criticism was directed rather higher up. As to the point that a great many of those consumers who, in our committee of investigation, are to be nationalised, I would say threatened men

live long. Anyway, to nationalise them does not stop them being consumers. It is just as bad for the man who is burning nationalised gas or using nationalised electric light to have to pay more for it or to have an extremely poor supply. I do not think that comes in at all. One of our principal lines of criticism was that these committees suggested by the Minister would go into complaints and investigate cases, and report to the Minister, who then had the Board to say that nothing more should happen. After all, criticism of the Board, when the Minister has the power that he has under this Bill over the Board is criticism of the Minister. Naturally, he will try to put right a complaint. I am sure the present Minister would. He obviously would not advertise it more than he could help, and if the criticism were persistent it might be sent back, it might be pigeon holed, it might even find its way into the waste-paper basket, and nothing would happen; but by the Clause that we suggest something would have to happen, because a great many people would read the complaint and find that something was not right.
8.15 p.m.
It is really on the broadest lines that I wanted to say a word or two. The predecessor of the Parliamentary Secretary, whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough rather funereally referred to as "the late lamented," asked how can an organisation running an industry in the public interest exploit anybody, assuming any national monopoly must be a benevolent one. I am not suggesting it would be malevolent; but, after all, it may make mistakes of judgment. A favourite writer of verse of mine teaches us
Evil is wrought by want of thought As well as want of heart.
That is very true, and mistakes of judgment may create evil in the sense of hardship. I want at once to clear away any suggestion that I am supposing that this present Board would be guilty of any such thing. We know they are most capable. But though the Minister is taking great powers in this Bill, I have yet to learn that he is taking power to make his Board immortal.
They will pass away, and others will be substituted; and, as I suggested on a previous occasion, they may be civil servants, and there is not the check on


civil servants, or on those running any nationalised industry, that there is on private enterprise. There is not the fear of losing the business. In private enterprise, if a customer is dissatisfied, the man responsible has his head combed, either by the customer himself or by the management or the junior partner. We in private enterprise have a saying that the customer is always right, because we have to please him. If he says a thing we have to try to agree with it. Has anyone ever heard a Government Department say that the customer is always right? He is not; he is always wrong. We in private enterprise are proud of service. Its rewards are accumulative and add up to form the goodwill of a business. It does not exist in the same way in a public monopoly. A spirit of service is a matter of great pride to private enterprise. There is nothing predatory or ruthless about it, as is sometimes suggested. In a national monopoly the spirit is much more that of "take it or leave it," except where there is a threat of a Question.
I do not see why a national monopoly should not, in time, develop goodwill in the same way as private enterprise, but without the spur of competition, I do not believe it will. It needs some stimulant, some stimulant to its conscience, and we have put forward this Clause, which, we believe, adds to the structure of the industry that is to be developed nationally and which, I think, will keep those in charge of it up to the mark. I know it will take a long time for them to build up the goodwill, but if they are constantly kept up to the mark they may develop that spirit of service which has actuated private enterprise in the past.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central):: The Parliamentary Secretary in his initial solo flight from that Box—on which we congratulate him—could not restrain himself from having one of the time honoured tilts that members of the Party to which he adheres so often bring into their arguments. He accuses Members on these benches of having evinced no interest in the past for the consumer where private monopolies were concerned. I should like to ask him where there exists a private monopoly in which there has not been made provision by a previous Government that the consumer shall not be exploited, or where such a private monopoly

has not been open to the four winds of international competition.

Mr. Gaitskell:: Is the hon. and gallant Member saying that there are no private monopolies in this country which are uncontrolled by Acts of Parliament?

Colonel Hutchison:: I say that where a private monopoly is uncontrolled by Act of Parliament, it is open to the four winds of international competition. Competition, national or international, has been a tremendous safeguard for the consuming public. It is a safeguard which this Bill is taking away. The coal industry can scarcely be claimed to be an industry where international competition has entered within the shores of this country.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont):: The hon. and gallant Member in talking about the four winds of international competition is getting very wide of the proposed Clause. This Clause deals with a consumer council and I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member will keep to that point.

Colonel Hutchison:: I was trying to lead up to the point, that throughout the whole of this Debate, and throughout the whole of the Bill, the export trade appears to be completely ignored. We had hoped to be able to have another council to look after the interests of the export trade, but I understand it is unlikely that we shall have an opportunity to discuss that question. That being so, we must judge whether the provisions put forward in this Clause improve the position of export trade, as compared with what is at present in the Bill. Is the export trade a matter of concern to the Minister, or have we heard its swan song? Is this export trade, which produced £35 million—?

The Deputy-Chairman:: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will help me by telling me which part of the new Clause refers to the question of the export trade?

Colonel Hutchison:: So far as I am able to understand this Clause, I find, in Subsection (5) (b) that this council shall
receive and consider representations from any quarter.

The Deputy-Chairman:: In speaking of quarters, I do not think that we should divide up the world.

Colonel Hutchison:: I had hoped that the words "any quarter" would include


representatives of that great body of men who are interested in the export trade of this country. If this great trade is to have no more consideration than has been shown by the Minister during the Committee stage, and if the procedure makes it impossible for me to debate the matter, except under the rather strange circumstances under which, you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, are allowing me to discuss the matter, I would ask hon. Members and the country to take note that in this great Bill, the prototype no doubt of other nationalisation Bills, no specific provision is made whereby those interested in the great export trade can have their case considered.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks (Chichester):: I am afraid that I shall undoubtedly earn the accusation of the Attorney-General for being reckless, and then perhaps hysterical. I have never previously taken any active interest in coal, and I have no practical connection with coal as a producer or as a distributor, and, strange as it may seem to some hon. Members opposite, I have not derived directly any benefit from coal royalties. I wish to say something as a coal consumer and as a representative of a great many people in my constituency who never see coal in the raw state except when it gets into the scuttle, when nowadays it is sometimes in a very raw state indeed, who suffer when coal is badly distributed and is insufficient in quantity and in quality. It is these people whom the Government have forgotten. We have a large Bill which has been advertised much in the same way as with the cinemas—
Coming events cast their shadows before.
We have seen, "When the Socialists get into power, you are going to see coal nationalised." We have asked for a long time how they are going to do it, and presumably this is the result. Never have we heard that the object was for the benefit of the consumer, and I wish to press upon the Committee that the consumers' protection calls for some provision in the Bill.
I do not suggest that this is perfect protection, but it is the best protection that can be offered by those who have no technical knowledge of coal, but represent the interest of the coal consumers, particularly on the domestic side. I would call attention to one or two provisions in the hope

of enlisting the support of other Members of the Committee who regard the matter from the same point of view as myself. I do not profess to like the idea of nationalisation of coal any more than I like the nationalisation of anything else, but let us accept the fact that we have it, and let us do the best we can to protect the interests of what we will call "Mrs. Smith"—the average small domestic consumer. My first comment is that even with area councils, such as are suggested in the Clause, it will be difficult for Mrs. Smith to get her complaints heard. In the proposal put up in the Minister's suggestion, it will be quite impossible for Mrs. Smith to complain about the supply, quality or quantity of coal, or any other fuel which she may be using if she has a patent cooking appliance. She has only one board to go to, but her complaint would have to filter through many strata and grades in the Civil Service before reaching it, and by that time her complaint would have little hope of ever receiving attention.

Mr. Follick (Loughborough):: Where does she go now?

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks:: At the present moment she has to go to her local fuel overseer, and we have seen that the system introduced as a wartime measure has brought no satisfaction at all to the consumer. Nevertheless, if we cannot revert to the proper freedom of supply and demand, so that the consumers can get what they demand and are paying for, let us, at any rate, try to give them proper protection under this Bill.
8.30 p.m.
As regards the constitution of the area councils, neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor I are wedded to the idea of the chairmen of the councils being lawyers. He does not like lawyers, and I share his reason because, as a lawyer myself, I think that we are all much too busy in our own job. Nevertheless, we would, of course, make much the best chairmen. As regards their constitution, there can be no doubt that the Clause is right. I say in all seriousness to the Minister that there is going to be no confidence by the domestic consuming public if the members of the Board, to whom the public are to put their complaints and difficulties, are persons only nominated by the Minister. That is not going to carry


confidence in the country. I hope that the Minister will recognise that fact and will agree with the principle on that point in the Clause. With regard to the types of persons who are proposed for nomination, in the case of the industrial council representatives of the different industries using coal, it is all the more important, if these other industries should be nationalised, that they should have a voice on these councils, because if they have only inter-Departmental claims, as between civil servant and civil servant, they will never get anywhere. If it is going to be a question of Peter paying Paul, let Paul male certain that he gets the right payment.
I want also particularly to stress the question of reporting. The Parliamentary Secretary criticised adversely the proposal that the councils should report on their decisions to the Minister. I can see no objection to their doing that. If the Minister is to keep his finger on the pulse of what is going on between the Coal Board and consumer, surely he must know of all the complaints, and how they are dealt with when they come before the Board. I urge that that principle should be accepted because it leads to the principle that the Minister should report the councils' decisions to Parliament. Unless the councils report to the Minister, how can the Minister report the councils' decisions to Parliament? They must come to the knowledge of the Minister, and it is essential if we, as Members of Parliament, are to protect in any adequate way, the interests of the consumers, who are not only the payers for the coal but the payers for the whole scheme and produce the money for the Ministry itself, that we must have a report submitted to the House by the Minister and be able to criticise.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West):: I want to be very brief, in addressing a few remarks to the Committee regarding this very important subject of the consumers' councils. As I see it, this is not really a political or party issue. It is a question of organisation, and a fundamental principle of organisation is involved. In saying that, I am not, for a moment, supporting this Clause, which has been brought forward by the Opposition. The reason that I am not doing so is because I do not think it will achieve any useful purpose. The very fact that an unspecified number of councils would be set up defeats the object

in view, for it would make for confusion in the whole industry. It may be that that is the purpose for bringing it forward; I do not know. I do not follow the remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) that the Opposition represents the consumers' interests, because who more than hon. Members on this side of the Committee represent consumers' interests? We represent them to a greater degree because we represent more of them.
The reason why I do not think this new Clause would achieve its purpose is because the whole purpose of a council is to confer, and if a council is to confer it must have on it all the major interests represented. Now the council that is suggested would be a consumers' council only, which would prevent it functioning to the fullest degree. To enable the council really to achieve its purpose in the interests of the organisation of the industry it requires not only the consumers to be present but the producers. This is not just a passing theory, because, after all, it is something which was suggested by one of the miners' leaders, Arthur Horner, the South Wales miners' leader at a conference on management held a few weeks ago in Oxford. He asked that there should be a producers' council. What is happening, I think, is that now that those people who formerly opposed nationalisation are accepting it as an essential thing, they are asking in what way they can help nationalisation to succeed. An indication of this is shown by the way these various interests are coming forward and saying, "Can we have a council to represent our views?" That, of course, is manifestly impossible. There cannot be many councils, because obviously that would lead to a lot of confusion—" In a multitude of councils there is strife." What we could do is to have on the consumers' council, which the Minister intends to set up under this Bill, more complete representation of the various interests concerned. If that is done, from the purely organisational point of view, we should achieve a worthwhile purpose. We should bring together in the council at a level with the executive Coal Board the full concensus of opinion, technical skill and advice in the industry. We should also be giving expression under this Bill to the spirit which is being born in nationalised industry and which asks for participation in a way in which it can serve the new industry in an effective manner.


So I would ask the Minister if he will give a little further consideration to this point, because many interests throughout the country are making their representations and asking what way they can effectively help in the industry. Particularly is that so of the technicians and the scientific people. We have seen that the scientific and technical people want to come in and form some sort of a joint organisation. I do not want to speak on a subsequent Amendment, but it illustrates the point which I want to make, namely, that all these interests want to express themselves. If the Minister would have at the top of the industry this central council, drawing together these people in some such way as I now suggest it would give new energy and vitality to the industry. The way that capitalism did things is disappearing, but we know that some degree of efficiency, though it was not really sufficient, was introduced into capitalist industry by the profit motive and the desire to retain the capital intact. That is disappearing, and there must be some new incentive given within nationalised industry to keep it efficient. I suggest to the Minister if he forms a council fully representative of all interests it will give all those various interests an opportunity of coming in and feeling that they are part of the industry, in which they are vitally interested. I have no doubt if this is done the success of nationalisation will be undeniable.
The suggestion has been made that if this was done it would undermine the authority of the Board. But if this council was given a specific task to fulfil, that of acting in an advisory and consultative capacity on technical and producers' as well as consumers' problems, it would remain only in that function, and would not necessarily overlap into the executive function of the Board. If that were done there would be a chance for the new spirit in industry, which the Prime Minister asked should express itself in order that the productivity of the country should be increased to a high degree, to become effective. The way in which that could happen, is by this method of democratic participation in the way that nationalised industry is controlled.

Mr. Jenninǵs:: I was glad to listen to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) because he, at any rate, has shown that he is not 100 per cent. satis-

fied with the Clause as it stands. I welcome what he said about this not being a party matter, because everybody is concerned, especially the consumers of coal. I want to say, in no apologetic way, that I support the new Clause, because I want to protect the Board from itself. The Board might come to the view that it would be justified in keeping up the price of coal to domestic consumers in order to bolster up the industrial side. Only this winter, in Sheffield, I heard of cases of people who could not get coal, and of those who were having to pay for coal which was really stone. The Minister advised me to tell them to apply to their local overseer for redress, but I am sorry to say that after they had done so they still had little or no coal, and still complained of its quality. If a reduction in the price of coal can be given it ought to be given to the domestic consumer. The Minister is smiling, but we have bought a lot of bad coal in the last few years. I think the Minister ought to be ashamed of some of the coal he has had to sell. Perhaps he has been forced to it, but if I had sold stone for coal, I should have been prosecuted——

The Deputy-Chairman: rose——

Mr. Jenninǵs:: I am sorry, Mr. Beaumont, but I was rather led away by the smile on the Minister's face, which I have seen so often in the Committee upstairs. The new Clause protects the Board from itself. I make no apology for saying that the Board might have a view which was not directly in the interests of domestic consumers; it might show a bias towards industrial consumers. The Parliamentary Secretary said that all complaints are not likely to come to the Minister, but I feel that the Minister ought to hear everything about complaints from all sides of the industry.
8.45 p.m.
There is another major reason why I support the new Clause. I believe that the House of Commons should have control in the matter of complaints. It ought not to be left to people who have a complaint to write to their Member of Parliament so that he can put a question to the Minister, and probably get a very uncertain reply, as we do get from Ministers from time to time. A report on the complaints heard before the councils ought to be made to the Minister, and that report


ought to be available to all hon. Members, so that we may see the type of complaints that are being made. We ought to be able to make sure that the industry is doing its best for every type of consumer. It is entirely wrong that the Minister should take power to take action if he chooses to do so. I am never very happy when I see a provision in a Bill that a Minister "may take action"; very often when he is expected to take action, he does not do so. That is why I feel that a report about complaints should come to the House, so that if the industry is burdening the consumers either from the point of view of the price or the quality of coal, the matter can be debated in the House. For these reasons, I support the new Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East):: I heard the earlier part of the Debate on this new Clause before being called out of the Committee, so that I hope hon Members will bear with me while I state the reasons I and my hon. Friends feel rather strongly on this matter. I think the difference shown by this Debate between the two sides of the Committee is one of degree. Clearly, the Government, by the somewhat short Clause 4 and its rather perfunctory provisions, do not attach anything like the importance to these councils which hon. Members on this side do. The new Clause is clearly the result of a great deal of very careful thought. Line after line of it provides for one detailed safeguard after another. It provides in detail the duties of the councils and their constitution, and it provides for the seven years' appointment of the chairmen. All this indicates that on this side of the Committee these councils, with their permanent chairmen, are meant to be things of real power in the country. The fact that the chairman's appointment is to be for seven years is designed to give that man independence so that he can stand up to the Minister. There is nothing like that in Clause 4.
Hon. Members on the Government Benches ask, "Why do we want all these councils?" I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of Fuel and Power once represented a Scottish Division. Is he going to say to us tonight that Scotland would not want its own consumers' council, that Scottish consumers or industrialists would be satisfied to lay their complaints before a council in London?

If he does, he has forgotten his own background, and if he does, I feel certain he will meet as much criticism from Scottish consumers as he is now meeting from Scottish miners. I insist that Scotland certainly wants its own councils, and I have no doubt that the Midlands, Wales, and other parts of England could put forward equally strong claims. The truth is that in these various areas, each of which has its own characteristics, the complaints themselves have their own characteristics and can be dealt with only by people living in the area who understand the local conditions. It is obvious that the Minister expects the Board to make mistakes because he provides for measures to meet those mistakes. In Clause 4 (5), he contemplates, in writing, that defects may be disclosed by the Board. We on this side of the Committee are quite certain that defects will be disclosed.
I do not think the hon. Members on the Government side realise the fear that is caused to us here and, I think, to the country, by the prospect of a great new, absolute, national monopoly for this vital product. [An HON. MEMBER: "It could not be any worse."] I am talking of peace time conditions when obviously, as my right hon. Friend has said, if one did not like a certain supplier one went to another. Now we shall take the coal only at the dictate of the Minister of Fuel and Power and that is, as I have said, a new and absolute national monopoly. That being so, it is vital that we should establish, here and now, the principle that against such a complete monoply the safeguards for the consumers should be the fullest possible. That is the stand a Liberal takes on this matter. [Laughter.] Let it be noted by the country tomorrow that when one claims that the rights of the consumers shall be protected against the national monopoly the hon. Members on the Government benches laugh at him. If hon. Members are laughing at Liberals—[Interruption.]

Mr. Shinwell:: At the hon. Member describing himself as a Liberal.

Mr. Stewart:: If hon. Members are referring to the comparatively small numbers—

Hon. Members:: No.

Mr. Shinwell:: I am very sorry but the hon. Member fails to understand the


cause of the ribaldry behind me. It is not that hon. Members seek to ignore the claims of consumers; in fact they are very conscious of the need to safeguard them. Neither do they make any attack on the Liberal Party, which is conspicuous by its absence. They are only interested in what the hon. Member said about himself, as an alleged Liberal.

Mr. Stewart:: I claim the right myself, to know whether or not I am a Liberal. The last person from whom I should seek advice on Liberal principles is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power.

The Deputy-Chairman:: I must ask the hon. Member not to continue on this point any further——

Mr. Pickthorn:: Oh.

The Deputy-Chairman:: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until I conclude. There is nothing in the Clause dealing with Liberals.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. When a Minister of the Crown, representing what is alleged to be a responsible Government, thinks fit to make an attack on the bona fides and the character of my hon. Friend, are we not entitled to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill at least to behave with ordinary decency?

The Deputy-Chairman:: In reply to that point of Order, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the interjections and remarks were of a good humoured nature. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I be allowed to finish? What I said was that I hoped the hon. Member would not continue that line of argument.

Mr. Pickthorn:: On a point of Order, and in perfect good humour. [Interruption.] I will say it again; in perfect good humour. I hope that those who speak as good humouredly as did the light hon. Gentleman opposite will be allowed to discuss at the same length the subjects which he discussed.

The Deputy-Chairman:: Now that we have secured good humour all round, I would ask the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) to continue his speech.

Mr. Stewart:: Perhaps I may now be allowed to conclude, also with perfect good humour, by saying that I represent a seat which I have represented consistently for 14 years, and which was represented for 33 years by Mr. Asquith. If any place in the country should know its Liberalism, and recognise a Liberal Member, it is East Fife.
It is significant that nowhere in the Minister's Clause is there any suggestion that the action of these councils is to be publicly reported to the country, although their action will sometimes be vital to the interests of the country. The Minister will remember that during the war we set up a Select Committee on National Expenditure, which used to go round the country examining this that and the other problem. It published its reports, and the Government were required to publish what they had done to meet the Committee's criticisms. That was most important. The greatest value of that Committee was that it publicised the Government's actions, and that it compelled the Government to take public action to meet those criticisms. None of those things will the right hon. Gentleman accept. He deliberately wishes to escape all those responsibilities. We would like to pin him down, and not only him but the whole new business of a State monopoly, to the complete publication of criticisms made of its operation and of the action taken or not taken by the Departments concerned. That point seems to me to be of first-class importance. As one who represents, humbly it is true, a rather small party, I urge the point of view of the people who seek complete publication of the Government actions. I demand that the proposed new Clause shall be accepted because it is the essence of the expression of Democracy.

9.0 p.m.

Major Roberts:: He Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the interests of coal consumers. The fundamental point which must be remembered by Members opposite is that consumers who were dissatisfied in the past were able to change their suppliers. Under nationalisation they will not be able to do so. I was lather distressed to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary said about representation of nationalised industries. He seemed to take the view that once an industry was nationalised, the interests of the con-


sumers no longer mattered, and need no longer be represented.
That, I think also, is a very dangerous statement. I want to refer to a speech made by an hon. Member opposite who is not now in his place. He was talking about those who represent consumers. He made what I thought was a rather exaggerated statement when he said that Members on the opposite side of the Committee represented a majority of consumers. In point of fact, if they take the total number of consumers in the country, and add up the votes they got at the last Election, I do not think they will find they have a majority of consumers.
The next point is that of discrimination. This is causing a great deal of instability in the industry at the moment. If I may give one example, there is the selling of slag to coke ovens. As we know, certain coke ovens will be owned by the Government and others by private enterprise. It may well be that there will be discrimination between the supply to the Government's coke ovens on the one hand and private enterprise coke ovens on the other, and it is very necessary, if the industry is to have confidence, that complaints about discrimination should be covered by this Clause and safeguarded in other Clauses of the Bill. I want to point out that if the Board has to cover its own costs, it will have pressure brought to bear on it—we have already seen it—from

the miners' side, some of it quite rightly, for an increase in wages and, possibly, shorter hours, and there will also be pressure by the Minister for an increase in output. Between those two very strong pressures, it is possible that the consumer, as the least line of resistance, will have to bear the brunt of an increase in price. To my mind it is essential that the consumer should be as strongly represented as the Minister, with his drive for production and the miners' representatives with their drive for increased wages. There must be an equal power for the consumer. I maintain that the Bill does not give this, and I agree with hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have supported this new Clause which gives that power. I say, on behalf of my constituents, many of whom are coal consumers, that it is very necessary that power should be given, through a proper Clause of this kind, so that their interests can be safeguarded.

Mr. Pickthorn: rose

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 121.

Division No. 154.
AYES.
19.05 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'1, Exch'ge)
Daines, P.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Deer, G.


Attewell, H. C.
Burden, T. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Attlee, Rt. Hon C. R.
Burke, W. A.
Delargy, Captain H. J


Awbery, S. S.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Diamond, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Callaghan, James
Dodds, N. N.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Douglas, F. C. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Champion, A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Baird, Capt. J.
Chater, D.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
Dumpleton, C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Clitherow, Dr. R
Dye, S.


Barstow, P. G
Cluse, W. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Barton, C.
Cobb, F. A.
Edelman, M.


Battley, J. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Coldrick, W
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Bellenger, F. J.
Collick, P.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Collins, V. J.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Ewart, R.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Binns, J.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Follick, M.


Blackburn, A. R.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Foot, M. N


Blenkinsop, Capt. A
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gaitskell, H. T. N


Blyton, W. R.
Corvedale, Viscount
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Boardman, H.
Cove, W. G.
Gibbins, J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Gibson, C. W


Bowdon. Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gilzean, A.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Daggar, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)







Gooch, E. G.
Macpherson, T (Romford)
Skinnard, F. W.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Grey, C. F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Smith, S. H. (Hull. S.W.)


Grierson, E.
Marquand, H. A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F (Brightside)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F
Solly, L. J.


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Guy, W. H.
Moody, A. S.
Stamford, W


Hale, Leslie
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Steele, T.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Morley, R.
Stephen, C


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Strauss, G. R.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mort, D. L.
Stross, Dr. B.


Hardy, E. A.
Moyle, A.
Stubbs, A. E.


Harrison, J.
Nally, W.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Naylor, T. E.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Haworth, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Henderson, A, (Kingswinford)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Hewitson, Capt. M
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Hicks, G.
Oliver, G. H
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Holman, P.
Paget, R. T.
Thorneycroft, H.


Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thurtle, E.


Hoy, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tiffany, S.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Titterington, M. F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Tolley, L.


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Parker, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Paton, J. (Norwich)
Viant, S. P.


Irving, W. J.
Pearson, A.
Walkden, E.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Pearl, Capt. T. F.
Walker, G. H.


Janner, B.
Perrins, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Warbey, W. N.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Popplewell, E.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Price, M. P.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.



Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pritt, D. N.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Keenan, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Kenyon, C.
Ranger, J.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Key, C W.
Rankin, J.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Kinley, J.
Reeves, J.

Wilkes, Maj. L.


Kirby, B. V.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lang, G.
Rhodes, H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Richards, R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Leslie, J. R.
Robens, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Levy, B. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Levy B. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williamson, T.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sargood, R.
Willis, E.


Lindgren, G. S.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wilson, J. H.


Lyne, A. W.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Wise, Major F. J


McAdam, W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Woodburn, A.


McAllister, G.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Yates, V. F.


McEntee, V. La T
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


McGhee, H G
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Mack, J. D.
Shurmer, P.



McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


McLeavy, F.
Simmons, C. J.
Mr. Collindridge and captain Michael Stewar


NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P G.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)


Assheton, Rt Hon. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)


Astor, Hon. M.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)


Baldwin, A E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.


Baxter, A B.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)


Beechman, N. A.
Cuthbert, W. N.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Birch, Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Glyn, Sir R.



Bossom, A. C.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Grimston, R. V


Bower, N.
Digby, Maj. S. W.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Haughton, S. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Drayson, G. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Drewe, C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Duthie, W. S.
Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)


Challen, C.
Eccles, D. M
Hope, Lord J.


Channon, H.
Erroll, F. J.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Clarke, Cot. R. S.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Hurd, A







Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Maude, J. C.
Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities)


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Mellor, Sir J.
Studholme, H. G.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jennings, R.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Morrison, Rt. Hn W. S. (Cirencester)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Keeling, E. H.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Teeling, William


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Nutting, Anthony
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pickthorn, K.
Turton, R. H.


Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Wadsworth, G.


Linstead, H. N.
Prescott, Stanley
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Lipson, D. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig O.
Walker-Smith, D.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Renton, D.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


McCallum, Maj. D.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Ropner, Col. L.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Ross, Sir R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)



Marples, A. E.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES



Marsden, Capt. A.
Smithers, Sir W.
Sir Arthur Young and Major Conant.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Spearman, A. C. M.



Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 286.

Division No. 155.
AYES
9.15 p.m


Agnew, cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Haughton, S. G.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Baxter, A. B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Prescott, Stanley


Beechman, N. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Birch, Nigel
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Rayner, Brig. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Lord J.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Jennings, R.
Ross, Sir R.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Channon, H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lambert, Hon. G
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lancaster, Col. C G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Strauss, H. G (Corn. Eng. Univ'sities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.
Linstead, H. N.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lipson, D. L.
Teeling, William


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.



Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wadsworth, G.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, S H. (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maude, J. C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Molson, A. H. E
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)



Granville, E. (Eye)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES 


Grimston, R. V.
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Awbery, S. S.
Barstow, P. G


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Ayles, W. H.
Barton, C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Battley, J. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Bacon, Miss A.
Bechervaise, A. E.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Baird, Capt. J.
Bellenger, F. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Balfour, A.
Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.







Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hale, Leslie
Pearson, A.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Peart, Capt. T. F


Binns, J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.
Perrins, W.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.



Blyton, W. R.
Harrison, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Boardman, H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Price, M. P.


Bottomley, A. G.
Haworth, J.
Pritt, D. N.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Henderson, A, (Kingswinford)
Pryde, D. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'I, Exch'ge)
Herbison, Miss M.
Ranger, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hicks, G.
Reeves, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Holman, P.
Rhodes, H.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Richards, R.


Burden, T. W.
Hoy, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Robens, A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Callaghan, James
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'Iverh'pton. W.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Sargood, R.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney C.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Champion, A. J.
Irving, W. J.
Segal, Dr. S.


Chater, D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Janner, B.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Cluse, W. S.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Cobb, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Shurmer, P.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Collick, P.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Simmons, C. J.


Collins, V. J.
Keenan, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Comyns, Dr L.
Key, C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Kinky, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lang, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Corvedale, Viscount
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Solley, L. J.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Levy, B. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Dagger, G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A.


Daines, P.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stamford, W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Steele, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lyne, A. W.
Stephen, C.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAdam, W.
Strauss, G. R.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAllister, G.
Stross, Dr. B.


Deer, G.
McEntee, V. La T
Stubbs, A. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Mack, J. D.
Symonds, Maj, A. L.


Diamond, J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Dye, S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Marquand, H. A.
Thorneycroft, H.


Edelman, M.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Messer, F.
Tiffany, S.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Titterington, M. F.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Tolley, L.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Monslow, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Ewart, R.
Moody, A. S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Follick, M.
Morley, R.
Walkden, E.


Foot, M. M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Walker, G. H.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mort, D. L.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nally, W.
Weitzman, D.


Gibbins, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gibson, C. W.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Gilzean, A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
White, H.(Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gooch, E. G.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Oldfield, W. H
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Grenfell, D. R.
Orbach, M.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Grey, C. F.
Paget, R. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grierson, E.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams. D. J. (Heath)


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Parker, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williamson, T.


Guy, W. H.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willis, E.







Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Yates, V. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Wilson, J. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Mr. Collindridge and Captain Michael Stewar.


Wise, Major F. J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth



Woodburn, A

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Assets to be transferred to the Board.)

Mr. Shinwell:: I beg to move, in page 44, line 34, to leave out paragraph 3, and to insert:
3. Interests of colliery concerns and of class. A subsidiaries thereof in fixed and movable property used for or in connection with the following (in this Act referred to as "colliery electricity activities") namely, generating, transforming or converting electricity consumed exclusively or mainly in the course of colliery production, transport, sales or welfare activities or in the course of any combination of those activities, and interests of such concerns and subsidiares in fixed and movable property used for or in connection with transmitting or distributing electricity generated, transformed or converted by means of property interests in which vest in the Board by virtue of the preceding provisions of this paragraph.
This is the first of three short Amendments to this Schedule which are of no great substance, but which I should like the Committee to accept. This Amendment provides for the necessary references to the transforming, converting and distributing of electricity, which is not covered by the Bill as it stands. Certain provision was made in the original draft, but it did not go as far as was intended. The next Amendment provides for the automatic transfer, under Part 1, of such colliery assets as workshops, lamprooms, ventilating and heating plants, gangways, footbridges and colliery offices. These assets must be transferred if we are to comply with the intention of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] There is a third Amendment which I also mentioned, because you may feel, Major Milner, that if there is to be no discussion, or if discussion is not likely to be protracted, it is better that I should explain the three Amendments at this stage and then allow them to be taken in their order.

The Chairman (Major Milner):: Is it agreeable to the Committee that these Amendments should be discussed together?

Mr. H. Macmillan:: We will do anything to save time, but these Amendments do not appear to be closely related.

Mr. Shinwell:: I am in the hands of the Committee. I thought I could serve the Committee in addressing myself to the Amendments in the form I was doing. They are not closely related as to the material to be transferred, but the principle is essentially the same, and if hon. Members have no objection I will refer to the third Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams:: I personally dislike the suggestion, and I think other hon. Members might like a discussion—it may be a very short discussion—on any one of these Amendments. If we take them together we are very much restricted.

The Chairman:: If there is any objection, and I gather there is, we must take the Amendments separately, but they would appear to me to be similar.

Mr. Shinwell:: In that case I will confine myself to having moved the first Amendment.

Colonel Clarke:: It appears that this Amendment amplifies the existing paragraph 3 of this Schedule, and I would like to know in greater detail why it was necessary to amplify it, how much wider it is to be made and how many more of the colliery interests are now included? The Bill throughout is wide, and it appears now to be getting still wider, and I feel we should know what the intention here is. It is difficult to understand this proposal, and with all respect to the Minister, he did not explain it in any great detail. I think that we should have it explained to us more fully than that. It is our duty to know that these powers will not be so increased that they will prejudice other industries besides that concerned with the direct getting of coal.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell:: I should have thought that it was self-explanatory, but I can, of course, comply with the hon. and gallant Member's request. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 3 of the First Schedule they will see that it refers to
generating or transmitting electricity consumed exclusively or mainly in the course of colliery production, transport, sales or welfare activities.
It was subsequently discovered that if we were to comply with the avowed purpose of this paragraph, it would be necessary to make additional references for, say, the


generating, transmitting or converting of electricity. It will be clear, of course, that the National Coal Board is not proposing to embark upon the generation or distribution of electricity, but, inasmuch as certain colliery undertakings carry on those activities at the present time, it is intended that they should be transferred.

Colonel Clarke:: I gather that the difference between this Amendment and the original paragraph is that whereas the original paragraph only included the direct electricity activities around the collieries, this Amendment includes any area of supply worked from the collieries generating plant. That is the real difference, and it is very considerably wider.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Shinwell:: I beg to move, in page 45, line 19, at the end, to insert:
7. Interests of colliery concerns and of class A subsidiaries thereof in fixed and movable property used exclusively or mainly for any one or more of the following, namely, repairing and maintaining things falling within any of the preceding paragraphs or this paragraph, preparing and adapting such things for use, providing means of access, lighting, heating and ventilation for the purposes of any of the activities therein mentioned, and any other activities incidental to the carrying on of any of the activities therein mentioned, including the organisation and supervision thereof, and securing safety therein.
This Amendment relates to certain assets such as workshops, lamprooms, ventilating and heating plant, and the like. There are certain colliery undertakings where workshops exist and which it will be necessary to take over. It is clear that, if these workshops were left untouched, they would be of no value to the colliery undertaking. Their value consists in the association with the undertaking itself and, consequently, it is intended that there should not be any severance.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Shinwell:: I beg to move, in page 45, line 41, after "pipes," to insert:
or other products manufactured from colliery debris or brick clay or earth.
This part of the Schedule relates to certain assets in fixed and movable property used for the purpose of making bricks, tiles or earthenware pipes or in connection with those purposes. We have had to assume that the making of bricks, tiles or earthenware pipes may not cover all the products made in the brickworks

and these words are proposed to be inserted to cover all such activities. It is not proposed to go beyond the original intention.

Mr. C. Williams:: This is a matter which needs a little explanation as to how far it takes the Government in connection with the making of bricks, which is a matter of rather great importance. I find myself at a loss to know the real explanation of, first, the original part of the Schedule and, secondly, the real reason for this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has just been explaining. Does it mean that the Government are going in for brickmaking on a considerable scale under this Schedule, because brickmaking has been connected with a colliery to a certain extent? That is a point on which I would like to have an answer. If that is the case, I would also like to know what rules or regulations there will be for the distribution and selling of bricks. Will this be done through the usual trade channels, or through Government channels? Those are the only two points which occur to me; I think they are points which, at any rate, hold some interest for hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Shinwell:: This matter was fully discussed in Committee upstairs and the principle was generally accepted. Hon. Members opposite expressed some objection to the principle of transferring assets other than those of colliery undertakings. The matter was argued and subsequently a decision was reached. There the matter stands. I would point out, however, that as regards brickworks and the ancillary activities to which reference has been made, they are not to be automatically transferred as in the case of colliery undertakings. They can be transferred either at the option of the Board or, it will be noted, at the option of the owner. The Board may feel disposed to allow them to remain with the former owner of the colliery undertaking. On the other hand, the former owner of a colliery undertaking may be saddled with a brickworks which is not particularly efficient, and he might be justified in calling upon the Board to transfer the assets. The matter can be resolved by process of arbitration——

Colonel Clarke:: No. I do not think it is right to say that the matter can go to arbitration. I have tried very hard to get it.

Mr. Shinwell:: I beg the Committee's pardon. It is in relation to other assets where the option can be exercised that arbitration comes in. I apologise. It was thought that as regards this particular group of assets, the question of arbitration need not be invoked because it was a matter of whether or not severance should take place. There may be cases where it would be invidious to allow severance to take place. On the other hand, it may be desirable in certain circumstances to allow severance. As regards the point put to me by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), the answer is this. I have said frequently in the course of our proceedings upstairs that the National Coal Board must be empowered to undertake activities such as those which are now undertaken by the existing colliery owners, or such activities as the colliery owners could have undertaken if they were so minded. If the Board feel that transference of brickworks or works for the production of similar material is of advantage to the Board for the purpose of their general activities, then clearly they are entitled to transfer. As to the disposal of the products, that is a matter for the Board to determine and, no doubt, they will use the medium now used by the colliery undertakings. On the other hand, they may decide to adopt other means for disposing of the products, but that appears to me to be a matter of small consequence, and I do not anticipate any difficulty.

Mr. C. Williams:: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the information which he has given to the Committee. We are deeply grateful to him for informing us that we may have another Government Department set up for the disposal of bricks. I appreciate the fact, and I thank him most sincerely for having kept one part open, namely, that it is not necessary for the Board to carry on these brick works. Heaven only knows, bricks are short enough now, but if it is to be left to a Government Department, we shall not know what a brick is.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: I do not wish to delay matters on this Amendment, except to take up one point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He quite properly said that in the discussions in Committee at different points in the Bill we discussed the scope of the Bill, and the

scope of the activities which would be within the power of the Board to undertake. We discussed that on a number of Clauses, and I trust we may have other discussions. The right hon. Gentleman did not leave any doubt as to his position, and I must just repeat ours. He consistently maintained that the Board should have the right to carry on such activities as collieries could have under taken had they been so minded. We consistently pointed out that that was a matter entirely as to how the articles of association of the companies might be drawn. They might have been so drawn as to enable them to carry on a great range of activities far beyond the scope of a colliery, or even normal ancillary businesses. They might even have been drawn to allow them to publish newspapers. We have consistently said that there is a great difference between setting up a single State monopoly for the purpose of obtaining coal, with its ancillary undertakings allied to it, and of an ancillary undertaking which may be able to do so by merely so drawing the articles of association. He has correctly stated his position, and I think it is important at this stage that we should restate ours. We see a very great difference between the two principles concerned.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal) considered.
NEW CLAUSE.—(Restrictions on disposal of stock isued for compensation of companies.)

Stock issued for compensation to a company legally entitled to the compensation by virtue of paragraph (a) of Subsection. (1) of Section nineteen of this Act, and any stock issued to the company in exchange there for under Subsection (4) of this Section, shall be subject to restrictions as to the disposal thereof to the extent specified in this Section.

Such stock may be disposed of—

at any time, by way of transfer to holders of debentures issued by the company in satisfaction of rights of theirs as such holders, or to members of the company in satisfaction of rights of theirs to a return of capital or to participation in surplus assets;
when the company is being wound up, by way of sale, or in any other manner, for any purpose other than satisfying rights of holders of debentures issued by the company, or of members of the company, as such holders or members;


when the company is not being wound up, by way of sale of so much of such stock as it may be requisite to sell for the purpose of satisfying rights of, or obligations of the company to, persons other than holders of debentures issued by the company as such or members of the company as such;
when the company is not being wound up, by way of sale of so much of such stock as it may be shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury to be requisite to sell for the purpose of raising an amount of liquid capital which in the opinion of the company is needed for its business or in order to facilitate a development or extension of business to be carried on by it, and which apart from this Section it would be entitled to raise;

and, when any such stock has been so disposed of, it shall be free from any restriction under this Section.

Except as provided by the last preceding Subsection such stock shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of.

The Treasury may by regulations make provision—

for the issue of stock which on the issue thereof will be subject to restrictions under this Section in the form of stock that is by the terms of issue thereof inalienable, so however that the regulations shall also provide for rendering any stock issued for compensation which is for the time being held in that form, and which is to be disposed of in accordance with Subsection (2) of this Section, exchangeable for a like amount of government stock having in all other respects the like incidents as the inalienable stock, but transferable in the ordinary manner appropriate to government stock of the class in question, and the regulations shall also provide for rendering all such stock so exchangeable at a date to be fixed by the Treasury as being the date when the purposes of this Section have been substantially satisfied;
for arranging, where it is proposed to satisfy rights of holders of debentures issued by a company, or of members of a company, and to use for that purpose stock to be issued for compensation or stock to be issued in exchange under the preceding paragraph, for the issue thereof direct to them;
for rendering it obligatory on such holders or members to accept stock issued for compensation or stock issued in exchange under paragraph (a) of this Subsection in satisfaction of rights which they would otherwise have as such holders or members to payments in cash, on the basis of the market value of the stock at the date of transfer or issue to them, subject to any provision for proceeding on the basis of its market value at an earlier date which may be requisite in connection with the making of arrangements for distribution amongst a number of persons or classes of persons.

The Treasury may by regulations make provision for the application of this Section, subject to such adaptations as may be prescribed, to stock issued for compensation to

which a company is not legally entitled as mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section, but in which the company is entitled to beneficial rights.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the restrictions on disposal of stock issued for compensation of companies. It is designed to replace Clause 22 of the Bill as it came before the Standing Committee and was discussed there. Later on, on the Report stage, the present Clause 22 will be deleted and this Clause, if it is accepted by the House, will take its place. In moving it, I am implementing the undertaking which was given when we were dealing with this matter upstairs, that Clause 22 would be reviewed and any defects in the application of the Clause would be put right. It would, of course, have been possible to have attempted to amend the Clause in the usual way. When we came to look at it it was felt that it was tidier and fairer to the House to alter the wording where it should be altered and present a new draft to the House. However, I should add there is definitely no change of policy. All we have done is to implement the undertaking we gave to look into points which we hoped were covered but about which there was some ambiguity. We now think this new wording will assist in making the intention quite clear.
9.45 p.m.
The Clause deals, as the House will remember, with the method by which compensation shall be paid. The basis laid down is that compensation generally shall be paid to begin with in what is known as non-transferable stock, and that basis is to remain, as the wording of the new Clause quite definitely shows. The changes that are here quite definitely lie, first of all, in presentation, and secondly in certain points of drafting and definition, where omissions and ambiguities in our view have to be cleared up. So far as presentation is concerned, the Clause has quite definitely been redrafted and revised to bring out the point which I think I gave an undertaking about in Standing Committee in order to satisfy right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, except as a temporary device pending distribution of the compensation that is to be paid, the holding of inalienable stock is to be the exception and not the rule.


A good many doubts were expressed upstairs, some hon. Members opposite holding the view that what the Government intended was that this inalienable or untransferable stock would remain in the hands of colliery concerns and other undertakings for an indefinite period of time. That, quite obviously, is not our intention or our desire. We want to see the money that is paid over find its way into the hands of those to whom it really belongs at the earliest possible moment, so that when certain conditions are complied with the untransferable stock will cease to be untransferable and will become transferable. It will be changed into Government stock which can in due time, if so desired, find its way on to the market and pass from owner to owner.
Paragraphs (a) to (d), of Subsection 2, deal with this matter. Under (a) and (b) holders of debentures or shareholders to whom stock is transferred in repayment or return of capital or in the winding up of a company will get it in transferable stock. Under (c) and (d), where a company desires to plough back the money or a portion of it into the business provision is made for that to be done and for the stock to be turned into a marketable security. The only remaining class of holder who will continue to hold the untransferable stock, as I think the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) among others emphasised more than once in Committee upstairs, will be a company, concern or undertaking which does not desire to pay out to its debenture holders or shareholders the amount which it receives by way of compensation under this Bill. If it continues to hold it as an investment, then its holding will quite definitely continue to be untransferable and inalienable. That should assist such a company to cease to hold the money coming to it in this way indefinitely, and it will help to get the money where we want it to be, in the hands of the shareholders or debenture holders to whom it quite definitely belongs. However, where once that has been done, and only a relatively small amount of the untransferable stock remains in the hands of an undertaking, where we are assured that the shareholders or debenture holders, or both have been satisfied, then the company will be able to transfer the residue into transferable stock. That was the point upon which, I think, I did give an

undertaking when this matter was under discussion upstairs.
There are one or two other points upon which I should briefly touch in the light of the fact that on Report Stage one can speak only once and must then forever hold his peace on that particular question. There is in this new Clause what we think is a clarification of a definition of a company that comes under the terms of this Bill. The provisions of the Clause apply to all companies now legally entitled to compensation, or to those who are entitled to beneficial rights in the compensation which is paid; and not only to the colliery companies. The Clause applies to any company which has an interest of any kind in the undertaking that is taken over. The provision in paragraph (2) I may, perhaps, mention here, because I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley and his friends have an Amendment down. I must not deal with it now, because it comes later, but I think that when we reach that stage the right hon. Gentleman will find that in this new Clause we have completely met his point, or if not completely, then substantially.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: Can the hon. Gentleman help me by indicating which Amendment?

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: It is the one dealing with compensation or payment to an officer. I forget the page, but I saw that there was an Amendment on that point in the right hon. Gentleman's name. He will find, I think, that we have endeavoured to cover the point which was raised in Committee not only by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side but by my hon. Friends behind me. We certainly think it was a good point. We thought it was covered, and we did promise, I think, that we would look into it, and that, if there was any ambiguity in the phrasing, we would clear it up. Here, I think, we have cleared it up, and I hope the House will agree. It does mean that compensation in cash can be paid, that is, stock can be transferred into transferable stock from the untransferable, in order to satisfy the claims, not only of ordinary creditors, but also to pay compensation to an officer or servant of the company who may be losing his employment or going out of the business for any other reason.


I think I have covered the main points of this Clause. If any hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think there are any which have not been covered sufficiently, no doubt they will call our attention to them, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will be only too pleased to reply.

Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham):: I am rather astonished we should have this Clause at all, because the Financial Secretary will remember that the reasons which we thought the Government had in mind for creating this inalienable stock have one by one disappeared. First, we thought the idea was that it was a good thing to block the money which might reach the hands of consumers, because it might be used to put up prices. We were told, however, that that was not the case at all. That argument was disposed of by the Financial Secretary, when he said that he wanted the money to reach the real owners as soon as possible. The next reason why the stock was to be made inalienable, was because the Treasury wished to keep some control in case ex-colliery companies went into new businesses. We were assured on the Committee stage that that was not the case. We were assured that the Treasury would certify that the money was wanted for a new business, without inquiring into the character of that new business, and so that went by the board. We are now left with the only other reason for creating this inalienable stock, which is an uncomfortable and distressing thing and not at all in accord with proper traditions. The only reason for blocking the money is that ex-colliery companies may use the money to finance other companies—presumably to invest in someone else's show. What proportion of the total amount of £150 million will rank as investment reserve to be held in the companies coffers, pending an opportunity to go into new business? I suggest that it will be very small indeed, and will not he enough to affect the gilt-edged market. It is absurd to suggest that it will affect the market, in view of the enormous amounts which are constantly changing hands. The £25 million or so will be of no real consequence at all.
Many companies will wish to take a hand in the development of some other industries in which they may not be the managers. Take the question of iron and

steel. It is quite obvious, without discussing the question of a change in ownership, that a great deal of money will be needed to rehabilitate and bring the industry more up to date. It is obvious that iron and steel firms are expecting to find a good deal of that money from the compensation given to them when they lose their coalmines. There are also colliery concerns which may still wish to reinvest some of their money in the iron and steel industry, which is somewhat connected with the business they have been doing, without going straight away into the management. They will be precluded, because they will not be running the business themselves. There will be others who will wish to invest in someone else's business. There seems to be no good reason why this should not be done, in our desire to secure employment and bring industry up to date. I cannot see, after all the Parliamentary arguments about inalienable stock having been knocked down one by one, that we are left with one single proposition why a company should not have gilt-edged in their portfolios, as reserves, and should not be allowed to sell and invest it in something else. Is it really worth while departing from sound principles for that very small object?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Birch:: The Financial Secretary, when introducing this Clause, said very rightly that in essence it was the same as Clause 22. He indicated that he thought it was rather less badly drafted, but on this contest of inferiority I think it would be invidious for me to judge, and therefore I will not go into any details on that point. The real point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has just remarked, is the question of inalienability. That raises a question of principle and a question of equity. The principle under which compensation under this Bill is to be distributed is quite clearly stated. The first principle is that of "Willing buyer, willing seller." That comes under Clause 12 (4). I cannot believe that any seller would willingly sell for blocked stock any more than traders in the Balkans sold their goods to Dr. Schacht willingly for aspirins and mouth organs. You do not sell anything willingly for something you do not like. The second principle is laid down under Clause 20 (3) of this Bill where it says:


The amount of Government stock to be issued in satisfaction of any amount which is under this Act to be satisfied by the issue of such stock shall be such as, in the opinion of the Treasury, is of a value equal on the date of issue to the amount to be satisfied, having due regard to market values of other Government securities existing at such date.
The whole point here is: If you have blocked stock, it has no ordinary market value. What its market value is, is very difficult to say. All you can say with certainty is that it is lower than the value of the stock that is marketable. I do not know how the Treasury is to decide what is its value. We have never been told in any way. Therefore, I say that the principle itself is wrong, because it goes against the principle of "willing seller, willing buyer," and also against the principle that the stock should be of a certain market value. We have had many variations and curious reasons given for doing this. Today, the Financial Secretary hardly bothered to give any. We have had that of the gilt-edged market, and the hon. Gentleman said upstairs that the danger was that, if the stock was not inalienable, it might make a stockbrokers' holiday. It is always pleasant when all parts of the House are in agreement, and I think we are all agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had two great successes—one is boosting the gilt-edged market, and the other is making a stockbrokers' holiday. I am expecting a statue to be erected to the right hon. Gentleman outside the Stock Exchange, inscribed the "Bulls' Friend."
The question of inflation was, I think, adequately dealt with by the hon. Member for Chippenham. The total amount is a "fleabite," and what the hon. Gentleman is doing is to take the more inflationary course of the two. I have always thought that in the "Financial Folly Stakes," the Financial Secretary ran neck and neck with the learned Solicitor-General. I think that here he has got a length and a half ahead; but I do not want to make him over confident. The learned Solicitor-General is capable of a remarkable turn of speed. I feel that there is no doubt that the Government have a guilty conscience on this matter, first because they were not doing this in other cases—they are not blocking stock in the case of Cable and Wireless. If you do not want people to form investment trusts, Cable and Wireless is really a case

in point. The second reason is that the Financial Secretary has consistently minimised the whole thing. He says that the restriction is not very much, and that it will be the exception rather than the rule. That is the reason given by the poor girl who had an illegitimate baby and who said, "I had one, but after all it is only a very small one." That may be an affecting argument, though not to a stern moralist like the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), but I do not think the best philosophers would accept it as an adequate excuse. "Only a little one" is not good enough. In conclusion, I would ask the House to reject this Clause, because it is not only thoroughly inequitable but it is also ridiculous.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities):: I want to raise two points. While associating myself entirely with the speeches we have just heard, I want to ask, first, have the Government really considered the effect on British credit of this sort of thing? I suppose the idea is to help British credit, but, in fact, what is the effect of saying that there is Government stock being given in compensation which the Government are terrified may find its way on to the market? Surely the effect on British credit must be adverse; for, if the Government were satisfied that the stock, when it appeared on the market, would sell at par, these restrictions would have no object whatever. Therefore, evidently, the fear of the Government is that if it were sold on the market there would be more sellers than buyers, which would demonstrate either that the amount of stock allocated is insufficient for compensation or that British credit is not as good as it purports to be. In either case it is injurious to British credit.
The other point is merely a drafting point, which possibly the Government might like to consider. The new Clause is sufficiently complicated without adding unnecessary words. I wonder whether the Government with their learned technical advisers have considered whether certain words are required in Subsection (2). It starts off by saying that stock may be disposed of under (a), (b), (c), and (d), and then appear the words "by way of transfer" or "by way of sale". I suggest that the words "way of" are pure surplusage. I would ask the


Attorney-General to give us an explanation if it were not for the fact that if he made the slightest attempt to get up the Closure would be moved by the Chief Whip. Therefore, I do not think there is any hope whatever of the Attorney-General being allowed to aid the House in this matter, but he might possibly consider whether what I have said is true, and, if he does come to that conclusion, advise the Government to put that point right later on.

Mr. Spearman (Scarborough and Whitby):: I regret that the first occasion on which I desire to intervene in this Debate is on a matter of compensation, because compensation is not really of importance under this Bill. The important point is to produce more coal. I can assure the Minister that on this side of the Committee we shall watch not only with deep interest but with very great anxiety how effectively he uses the instrument for the purpose. I am sure he would agree that if there is to be compensation it should be as equitable as possible. Compensation should be such as to give the maximum satisfaction to the recipient where it does not cost the State any more. If giving the shareholder cash for transfer of stock satisfies him more, which it certainly would do, and would not cost the State any more, it does seem to me to be the obvious course. I should like to say why I do not think it would cost the State any more.
I realise that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not agree with me. I read with very great interest what he said upstairs and I am sorry to be critical of the hon. Gentleman because, if I may say so, I like and respect him, but the views he expressed on 20th January do seem to me to be most curious for anyone in his position. I cannot help thinking that either he was not quite so well briefed as usual that day, or that for once he departed from his brief. Perhaps he would bear in mind the unhappy fate of a very junior Minister in another place who, when called upon for the first time, unexpectedly, to reply for the Government, read his speech with the greatest care and exactitude, but, unfortunately, added the last sentence: "Not much of an argument, I am afraid, but it should be good enough for their Lordships' House." I do not think the hon.

Gentleman can expect what he said on 20th January to be good enough for the Standing Committee. He said:
To issue cash would undoubtedly upset the gilt-edged market.
Later he said:
It would also be difficult, so we think, to find at short notice the amount of cash necessary to compensate stockholders.
Still later, he said:
It would in a sense be a stockbrokers' holiday. They would be given the job of finding new investments for those people who wanted to re-invest their money, and they would have a very good time.
With regard to shareholders receiving compensation in cash, the bulk of them would probably buy Government stocks, particularly those who had been compensated for holdings in prior charges, because they are not so easy to buy now. If they did that, the stockbroker would get a commission, on £1,000, of £2 10s. or, if it was short-dated stock, 12s. 6d. On that, I think his holiday would be a rather austere one. I have been a stockbroker, and I know a little about this. If, on the other hand, the present process is adopted what may happen will be that the shareholder will say, "I am getting a much lower dividend than I used to get, and I am not getting marketability. I think I will sell these shares." If there were 1,000 shares at £1 each, the commission would not be £2 10s. or 12s. 6d., but £12 10s. Insurance companies would say, "Here is a chance of buying shares which, in fact, are Government stock. We will buy them and get another £12 10s." By the process which the Minister is adopting he may be affording the stockbroker quite a good holiday.
Let us return to the question of short notice. I think the Financial Secretary ought to make a public withdrawal of what he said about this matter. Only last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was expounding the great credit of Government stocks, and the high credit of this country. For the Financial Secretary to say, when year after year we raised between £2,000 million and £3,000 million, that the present Government cannot raise £200 million at short notice is quite out of keeping, and a statement that should be hurriedly withdrawn. With regard to protection of the gilt-edged market, the Financial Secretary said:
We have to preserve—I almost hesitate to use the phrase—the gilt-edged market.—


[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 20th January, 1946; c. 551.]
10.15 p.m.
That is the constantly recurring theme of the Financial Secretary's and Chancellor's speeches as to what they must do to look after the gilt-edged market. In the last war, all these dodges and tricks were used to try and divert all purchases into the gilt-edged market. The result was that at the end of the war the State had to pay just double the rate of interest it paid at the beginning. In this war, quite a different affair has resulted. In this war, the Government have been borrowing between ten and twenty times as much each year as they did before the war, and yet they have succeeded in reducing the rate of interest. Surely, the Financial Secretary is not going to tell us that preventing borrowing of £100 million has enabled them to borrow £2,000 million cheaper than before. It is not that at all. It is because an entirely new weapon has been devised, not by the present Chancellor, but by his predecessor, Sir Kingsley Wood, or during his regime, which is technically called in language which means very little, liquidity preference. In fact, it has been realised that if the investor is to be induced to surrender his liquidity, he has to be tempted at a very high rate. By increasing the volume of money, that has been avoided. For some time it was thought that to increase the volume of money would cause an inflationary effect. I would completely deny that. I will not now weary the House by giving a long exposition of my views, but I want to quote one sentence from that not unreliable paper, "The Economist," last week:
The volume of money measures neither the current nor the potential spending power, but simply the extent to which the public prefers to hold its savings in the most liquid form.
There really is absolutely no reason to have all these complicated dodges in order to preserve the gilt-edged market. Is this the real reason, or is there some other? I cannot help thinking there is some more substantial reason. If there is, we are entitled to hear it, and to judge what it is. If there is no other reason, and if the Financial Secretary is really correct in saying that it is in order to preserve the gilt-edged market, I am bound to say he is about 15 years out of date, and that seems to me to be a long

way to be out of date, even for a Labour Government. We left the gold standard in 1931. Before then, it was true that the money in this country could be exported. It was necessary to have high rates of interest to protect our gold. All that is now a thing of the past. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that if he has no better reason than that, he should try to cut his losses. As I have said, I have been a stockbroker, and I know that is a very unpleasant thing to do, but I also know, by bitter experience, that it is a wise thing to do if you do it in time. I suggest the Government should reconsider the matter. I would remind the Financial Secretary that the gilt-edged market is not a frail child. The gilt-edged market is a lusty infant, amenable to discipline, and Sir Kingsley Wood provided the Financial Secretary with a weapon with which he could treat that child. I ask him not to allow the whims of that infant to disturb fair treatment in a case like this.

Mr. Shinwell:: It is my intention to bring the proceedings to an end, if the House so agrees, at a very early stage. We have made considerable progress today, and I am grateful to hon. Members opposite for the assistance they have given me and my hon. Friends. Although I recognise that in the two days of the Report stage there yet remains a substantial amount of work to do, I have reason to believe we will manage to get through. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Spearman) seemed to me to attribute sinister motives to the Government. I was surprised to hear him speak in such a strain. He is otherwise so amiable. What has come over him I cannot say. It certainly cannot be due to his elation as a stockbroker because he hopes to avail himself of the opportunities the Government afford in this Measure to accumulate still greater wealth than he now possesses.
But if, as a result of our activities, he should derive benefit, I am sure we should extend our hearty congratulations to him. He did indicate at the beginning of his speech that there was something much more important than compensation, which was to produce more coal. I understand that that is the primary purpose of hon. Members opposite, so that compensation is a secondary consideration—at least, that is what I understood, although now I am not quite so sure. The fact is that we are


concerned about compensation. Hon. Members opposite may hope for the worst—that is quite natural—but we shall get the coal all right—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—because we shall have the organisation with which it will be possible to procure the coal. That is very necessary for this disease-ridden industry, but it is a matter for another Debate.
At any rate the Government have provided a means of securing compensation for the dispossessed owners, and in all the circumstances the method of providing compensation is, in our judgment, eminently satisfactory. I would, however, direct the attention of hon. Members to a matter which appears to have been ignored in certain quarters. I put it in the form of a question: Who are the real owners of the colliery undertakings? Not necessarily the directors, nor for that matter the company itself, but the shareholders in the colliery undertaking.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport (Knutsford):: That is a wonderful discovery.

Mr. Shinwell:: Hon. Members opposite sneeringly suggest that this is a wonderful discovery, but they apparently have not made that discovery, because they constantly demand that compensation in cash should be paid to the colliery under takings when in fact we are providing, by this process, compensation in cash to the actual owners of the property—the shareholders. Who can take exception to this? When stock is distributed by the undertakings as the result of a process of liquidation various categories of shareholders can convert that stock into cash whenever they feel so disposed. I always understood that it was the concern of hon. Members opposite to protect the small man, but we on this side are the custodians of the small man. The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) this afternoon, referred apologetically to the widow and orphan. There are widows and no doubt there may be orphans among colliery shareholders. We seek to protect them, and what we are saying in effect is that when the colliery undertaking goes into voluntary liquidation and distributes its stock among its shareholders, those shareholders can, if they desire, avail themselves of convertibility. Therefore there can be no case against the Government on that score.

Mr. Eccles:: There is no point in being a shareholder if you want cash. When the right hon. Gentleman said "goes into voluntary liquidation" he touched the spot, which is the question of whether the shareholders can, if they so desire, go on in business. They might not be allowed to, but why should they not be allowed to? Why should not we be allowed to cater for the shareholder who wishes to continue in the business, just as much as for the one who wants to get his money?

Mr. Shinwell:: We will come to that point. I understand that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) is concerned about the shareholders. Very well. It is clear that the shareholder can convert from stock into cash. That is settled. The shareholder may not wish to convert into cash. He will be the recipient of Government stock at a rate of interest to be determined—[Interruption]—a fair rate of interest, which will be related to the particular situation. The shareholder decides not to convert into cash. The shareholder may hold the Government stock and earn interest. What is wrong with that? The shareholder is entitled to do what he likes with his own stock. There will he no dictation on the part of the Government, or from anyone. That is quite clear.
On the other hand, the colliery undertaking may, with the consent of its shareholders, decide to engage in another form of business. I understand that it is the desire of hon. Members opposite that there should be freedom on the part of the colliery undertakings from which the assets have been taken, to engage in some other business. The hon. Member for Chippenham referred to the iron and steel trade. A colliery undertaking no longer in possession of colliery assets, may want to engage in the iron and steel trade if, in the opinion of the Treasury, that is a reasonable thing to do. After all, the Treasury is concerned with the national economy, and has to consider, in conjunction with other Government Departments, the question of priority. They have to consider whether it is desirable to embark upon this or that business or whether it is desirable to exercise some kind of organisation, and, therefore, of priority. [Interruption.] If the colliery undertaking with the consent of the shareholders does decide to engage in some other form of industrial activity, it can do so. There is nothing to prevent it.



The Clause enables it so to do. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker:: I deprecate these constant interruptions. This is not the Committee stage of the Bill. Speaking is far more formal here than in Committee, and hon. Members should have made their points in advance without the need for constant interruption.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell:: I am trying to draw attention to the point that the shareholder is protected. That is very desirable. The shareholder may hold the Government stock. Is there anything wrong with that? Nothing at all. The colliery or ancillary undertaking may, if it desires, engage in some other industrial activity, with the consent of the Treasury and can transfer the stock. Hon. Members opposite have spoken about the non-transferable stock. There is no such thing. Stock, in certain circumstances, is all transferable. In those circumstances I am bound to say that I cannot appreciate the arguments of hon. Members opposite that there is no substance in the Clause. I know that hon. Members have not opposed the Clause. So far as I can understand, it is accepted in principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I did not detect in the arguments adduced by hon. Members on the other side any hostility to the principle embodied in the Clause. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am not aware of it. Questions have been asked about the Clause. There has been some criticism on certain points, but they seem to be in the main minor points. As regards the principle embodied in the Clause there does not appear to be any real hostility, and in the circumstances I hope the House will now come to a decision.

Mr. Jenninǵs:: So far as I am concerned there is no doubt about whether I am or am not in agreement with the principle of this Clause. I gave the Minister my opinion in Committee and I do so again. In my view the restrictions imposed by the Minister are such as to interfere with the rights of the British subject. The subject has his property taken away from him and is given something that he does not want, and given it under certain restrictions. I assure the Minister that if I am valuing a share in any company or any stock, the first thing I ask is, whether there is any restriction

on its negotiability. Here there is a restriction and I would at once write down that share. From that point of view the share has less value. The Minister says these are small restrictions, but if I want to engage in any other business I have to come to the Treasury and ask whether they will let me do so. There is no doubt about it. The man does not want this stock; it is being forced upon him, and for that reason I feel bound to oppose the Clause.

Mr. H. Macmillan:: As the Minister has said, we have made rapid progress today, and we are of course now dealing with some of the more important matters connected with the Bill. Therefore I hope that when we have reached the end of this Clause we may feel that we have done a good day's work. As the House seems to be in that happy frame of mind, I shall not delay hon. Members very long.
The right hon. Gentleman taunted or twitted my friends with not having made it clear whether we are opposed to this Clause or not. We voted against it in Committee and we propose to divide against it tonight. That should remove from the right hon. Gentleman's mind that anxiety which appears to haunt him as to our intentions. It has been stated that the reason why this Clause is presented in this form is because an amendment to Clause 22 would not do. It was reiterated in Debate, that Clause 22 was incapable of being amended, and that therefore the best thing to do was to withdraw it altogether and have a new Clause. I must say that I think the Clause was one of the worst drawn Clauses ever framed. It was almost unintelligible, and it did not carry out the purpose for which the Minister said it was designed. This proposal has the advantage that it is much clearer in its intentions and meaning. I would also thank the Financial Secretary for the reference to the proposed new Clause on the Paper dealing with the compensation of officers, but of course I must also mention in passing that while that makes the compensation of officers one of the purposes for which the stock can be sold, it was in fact designed to ensure that officers and servants of the company after the passing of the Bill would receive the same as they would have received had the Bill not been passed.


On the broad principle the Financial Secretary told us this was a necessary device, pending the distribution of compensation, and that the holding of inalienable stock would in his view, be the exception, and not the rule. We have, therefore, travelled a long way since the Second Reading, and even since the Committee stage. In the strange history of this Clause, one of the most remarkable in our Debates upon this Bill, we have covered the whole field of reasons given by the Government for maintaining the principle of inalienable stock. The reasons have been different at different stages. At one time we were told we had to defend the capital market. To repeat the hon. Gentleman's phrase, we had to preserve the gilt-edged market. At another time we are told that the total amount to be left in fixed, not liquid, form will be negligible. Therefore, what is to be the effect on the gilt-edged market? At one time we are told one reason, at another time another, for the various changes through which this Clause has passed.
The Minister seems to think we have suggested some sinister reason that might well lie behind this proposal. I should be the last to suggest any sinister reason to the Government. But in the story of this Clause I see a most peculiar change of front, the reason for which quite baffles me. We are now reduced to a fantastic position. As the Clause now reads, if the company is wound up, of course, stock can be disposed of for distribution, as it can be to pay its servants. To meet prior payments and creditors proceeds of stock can be distributed. If it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury that it is requisite to sell the stock for the purpose of raising an amount of liquid capital which is needed to facilitate an expansion of the business, then it can be sold. The right hon. Gentleman used arguments in favour of the Treasury being satisfied, as if it were a kind of method of direction of investment. He said it was a good thing to direct investments so as to gain control of the order of priorities in which investment could be made. That is not provided for in the Clause, because the only thing the Treasury has to be satisfied about is not the desirability of a company making its investments, but whether, in fact, it is necessary to sell this particular stock in order to raise

enough capital to enter upon the particular extension of their business which they want to undertake. In Committee, when I raised this very question, the hon. Gentleman said:
It is need not desirability that the Treasury will look at.
—exactly the opposite of what the Minister said today. Further he said:
We do not want to usurp the functions of the Capital Issues Committee.
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th March, 1946; c. 619.]
I am, therefore, baffled to find the reasons which lie behind this strange and tortuous story. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be a malignant and sinister reason. I would not go as far as that. I think it may be just one of stubborn obstinacy. It may be that the real purpose is to force these particular concerns into not voluntary but compulsory liquidation, because the Government do not wish large and powerful enterprises, which have many other undertakings besides colliery undertakings, to remain in being. They do not wish these "rocks of hope" to remain after the wreckage and misery the Control Board will bring. [Interruption.] It certainly is a very strange thing that in this new form of Socialism—adapted, I suppose, to whichever person one happens to be speaking to—the shareholder can draw his interest. The right hon. Gentleman asks "What is wrong with that?" I do not see anything wrong with it. But we used to hear a lot about profit and interest and as one who has been a student of Socialistic and Marxist writings, I should think from the Minister's point of view almost everything was wrong with it. Socialist Ministers are now apparently the pillars of the rentier world. They do everything to destroy enterprise, to support those who draw interest without enterprise, and to turn everybody into a rentier.
I think that may be one reason lurking behind those purposes. There is a desire to seize some of these great well conducted and well administered enterprises, which would be forced into liquidation if they were to give the shareholders the capital compensation which they require. But there is also more likely to be just an ordinary sheer kind of obstinacy that descends upon Governments and Departments once they are committed. We must be very frank; we have all seen


something of that in our time. When once a statement has been made with great dignity, especially on Second Reading, then it is so very hard to withdraw it without much loss of face, that one tends to hold on to a tiny bit of principle although one has given away three-quarters or five-sixths of it. I think the Treasury supported the idea that a large amount of stock should be held, and not put upon the market, because they must look with a certain amount of anxiety at the enormous quantities of stock that may be issued as industry after industry, enterprise after enterprise, and one form of property after another, are taken over and compensation granted by the issue of stock. Therefore, I can understand they are trying to settle the principle that this stock should be held and not placed too rapidly on the market. In the course of Debate and of inquiries into these matters, it has been found necessary to make all kinds of allowances which tend to whittle away this principle.

Mr. Glenvil Hall:: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I began by saying we had made no change whatever in the basis; it is exactly the same as it was at the Second Reading. All we have done is to make what we intended less ambiguous perhaps than some people thought it was, when the original Clause was produced.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Macmillan:: I am quite aware that the hon. Gentleman began by saying that. No doubt it is what he was instructed to say. But it is not what he went on to say. As I have already pointed out, all the arguments on this matter to which he and the Minister in charge of the Bill have so far directed attention have been mutually contradictory. Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that it is just sheer obstinacy to hold on to this principle which was at first laid down. If it is not, what is the purpose? It cannot be honest to take away a man's property and give him neither cash, nor stock which he can sell, in the market. The only thing which could justify so clear a departure from the ordinary rule which we have laid down for compensation for compulsorily acquired property—after all, we have been doing that for many years—would be a condition either of war or of a period

immediately following war, where injury done to the State would be so great should the ordinary rules be followed, that one would be justified in making at least a temporary departure from them. But when we come to examine that argument we are told that only a very small part of the stock is, in fact, to be permanently held, and that this is a temporary device pending the distribution of compensation. Therefore, the argument that it assists the State in its time of need to depart from the normal honest rule of compensation does not apply.
We are left with this sole object, that the Government do not seek to prevent the stock being distributed to individuals on liquidation, but they may, of course, seek to put a great premium on liquidation in order to force these companies to get their shareholders to object to liquidation. They do not seek to prevent them going into business with their own money. The only thing we are left with is that they cannot sell or borrow on the stock, nor purchase shares nor enter into other business through subsidiary companies, but through the company itself. That is all it amounts to. They should not become in any form an investment company or a central holding company. What is the object of that? Is there anything wrong in it? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the reason? What economist, financier or Treasury official will tell us that it is absolutely vital to prevent a company forming a subsidiary company and putting the money into the business through the subsidiary? It is a terrible blow to the whole tradition and power of British credit to be told that one must not operate through a subsidiary company, but that it is perfectly all right to operate directly. On the Government's own admission, we have gradually whittled away this great principle of inalienability. This provision is not going to be operative except over a very small part of the field, on the Government's own admission, and all we shall have achieved will be the maximum amount of trouble to individuals and the maximum injury to the financial reputation of the nation.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 105.

Division No. 156.
AYES
10.50 p.m


Adams, H R. (Balham)
George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)
Moody, A. S.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gibbins, J
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gibson, C. W
Morley, R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gilzean A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Alpass, J. H.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A


Attewell, H. C.
Goodrich, H. E
Nally, W.


Awbery, S S.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Ayles, W. H.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Baird, Capt. J.
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Balfour, A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Oldfield, W. H


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Grey, C. F.
Orbach, M.


Barstow, P. G.
Grierson, E.
Paget, R. T.


Barton, C.
Griffiths D. (Rother Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Berry, H.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D (Moss Side)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Beswick, F.
Gunter, Capt. R. J
Pargiter, G. A


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Guy, W. H.
Parker, J


Binns, J.
Hale, Leslie
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Paton, J (Norwich)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pearl, Capt. T. F


Blyton, W. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Perrins, W.


Boardman, H.
Hardy, E. A.
Platts-Mills, J F. F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Harrison, J.
Poole, Maj. Cecil (Lichfield)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Popplewell, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Haworth, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. Philips


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Pursey, cmdr. H


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hicks, G.
Ranger, J.


Burden, T W.
Hobson, C. R.
Rankin, J.


Burke, W A.
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Reid, T (Swindon)


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Horabin, T. L.
Rhodes, H.


Callaghan, James
Hoy, J.
Richards, R.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)
Ridealgh Mrs M


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robens, A


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cluse, W S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cobb, F. A.
Irving, W. J.
Sargood, R.


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Segal, Dr. S.


Collick, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E A A


Collindridge, F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Collins, V. J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shawcross, Sir. H. (St. Helens)


Colman, Miss G. M
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Shinwell, Rt Hon. E


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Shurmer, P.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Keenan, W
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Kenyon, C.
Skinnard, F. W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Key, C. W.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Cove, W. G.
Kinley, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lang, G.



Daggar, G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, T. (Normanton)



Daines, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Leslie, J. R.
Solley, L. J.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H
Sorensen, R. W


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Levy, B. W.
Sparks, J. A


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Stamford, W


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele. T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Delargy, Captain H J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Strachey, J


Diamond, J.
Lynn, A. W.
Stross, Dr. B


Dobbie, W.
McAdam, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McAllister, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Donovan, T.
McEntee, V. La T.
Swingler, S.


Douglas, F. C. R.
McGhee, H. G.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)


Dye, S.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thurtle, E


Ewart, R.
Marquand, H A.
Tiffany, S.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Titterington, M. F.


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Foot, M M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Mikardo, Ian
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mitchison, Maj G. R
Viant, S. P.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Monslow, W.
Wadsworth, G







Walkden, E
Wilkes, Maj L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Walker, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, A.


Warbey, W. N
Willey, F. I. (Sunderland)
Woods, G. S


Weitzman, D.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Yates, V. F.


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, D. J. (Heath)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wells, W T. (Walsall)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Willis, E.




White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.


Wigg, Col. G. E
Wilson, J. H.



NOES.


Assheton, [...]t. Hon. R
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Morrison, Rt Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)


Astor, Hon. M.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Baldwin, A. E
Haughton, S. G.
Noble, Comdr. A H. P.


Baxter, A. B
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bower, N.
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W
Hurd, A
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Challen, C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Channon, H.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Ropner, Col. L.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Sir R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Linstead, H. N.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Teeling, William


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. T.


Eccles, D. M.
Maitland, Comdr J. W
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Manningharn-Buller, R. E
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Medlicott, F.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Mellor, Sir J.


Grimston, F. V
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Commander Agnew and Mr. Studholme.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

SERVICE PENSIONS

11.0 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[R. J. Taylor.]

Mr. Thomas Macpherson (Romford):: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter of great importance to ex-Servicemen and their dependants, one which has received a considerable amount of prominence recently as a result of several judgments given against the Minister of Pensions in the High Court. It is the question of the principle popularly described as "Fit for service, fit for pension." Until that simple commonsense principle is accepted, ex-Servicemen will not be satisfied that they are getting a square deal so far as pension claims are concerned. I am not suggesting that a man should be entitled to a pension because of something which is the result of his own fault or folly, but I think that our British sense of justice and fair play demands that if a man is accepted by the Services perfectly fit, in category A.1, and comes out with his health impaired, suffering from some malady or disease or illness contracted during his war service, that man should be entitled to a pension in accordance with the degree of his disability
That is far from being the case today, and dissatisfaction is widespread, as every hon. Member of this House knows. Some indication of the position was given by my right hon. Friend himself in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for


Luton (Mr. Warbey) to the effect that up to 31st January last, 680,000 men and women had been invalided out of the Forces, and of that number only 285,000 were in receipt of pensions. From further information elicited by a supplementary question, it would appear that up to that date something approaching 200,000 applicants for pensions had been turned down. To my mind, that represents a very serious state of affairs, for apart altogether from statistics, every hon. Member knows from his own postbag and from experiences in his own family or among his friends and constituents that there is something radically wrong with the treatment of ex-Servicemen so far as pensions claims are concerned.
In the first place I deplore the whole attitude, the whole spirit of the Ministry in dealing with pensions claims. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but both before I came into this House and since, in fighting these pensions cases, I cannot but feel that the medical and legal advisers of the Ministry all seem to be conspiring how to prevent a man getting the pension he justly deserves instead of facilitating his claim and dealing with it with sympathy and generosity. Many of the older Members of this House, of course, have experience or knowledge of the discreditable behaviour of past Governments in past wars in dealing with soldiers' pensions. We British people have many fine qualities in peace and in war, but right down through the ages our history of dealing with ex-Servicemen's pensions has never been one of which we can be proud. During the war nothing is too good for these men, but with victory and peace we find neglect and indifference.
Our God and soldiers we alike adore, When at the brink of ruin, but not before; After deliverance, both alike requited—Our God forgotten, and our soldiers slighted.
Many of us in this House are determined that such a state of affairs shall not recur again, and that this time we shall profit from the experience of years gone by and make sure that our disabled ex-Servicemen are treated generously and decently.
My second point is that, in my view, the Royal Warrant is not being properly interpreted either by the Ministry or by the appeal tribunals. It has, surely, percolated down to the Ministry of Pensions by this time that a great, funda

mental change took place in the interpretation of the entitlement to pension as a result of the Royal Warrant of 1943. Previously, a claimant was not entitled to pension unless there was good and sufficient evidence that his disability was, in fact, attributable to war service. But in the Royal Warrant in accordance with which pensions are now being dealt with, the position is reversed. By Article 4, subsection (2) of the Royal Warrant of 1943, it is expressly stated that in no case shall there be onus on any claimant to prove fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt shall be given to the claimant. I suggest that in many cases the benefit of the doubt is not given to the claimant, and that in the majority of rejected cases the benefit of the doubt is given to the Ministry of Pensions.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend two questions on behalf of these men. The first is this. Mr. Justice Denning's judgment has definitely raised new hopes that, at last, many of these rejected cases will be reexamined. I want to ask if my right hon. Friend is prepared to reexamine all cases that have been rejected by the appeal tribunals; to examine them to see which of these cases are affected by Mr. Justice Denning's decision. Furthermore, applicants who have had their appeals turned down have been invited to go before the High Court; but that, also is impossible in many cases because there is a limit of six weeks after which one may not apply. I would ask my right hon. Friend if, having regard to all the new circumstances, he will agree to waive this condition concerning the six weeks, and make it possible for these men to take their cases to the High Court. These two points I ask the Minister to consider. If it is said that the tribunals have nothing to do with the Ministry of Pensions, but are responsible to the Lord Chancellor, then I ask my right hon. Friend to speak to the Lord Chancellor to see if he can persuade him to grant these two requests.
In conclusion, I remind the House that we are on the eve of great victory celebrations. Representatives from every branch of the Services, and of those who took part in the war, will be parading in a few days' time in procession, and tribute will be paid to them by the people of this country. But one big army will be missing from those parades—the army of the thousands of disabled and invalided


ex-Servicemen who have been denied pensions. They will not be in the parades on 8th June. But their case is before this House tonight. I appeal to my right hon. Friend and to the Government to take immediate steps to effect some drastic changes in the administration of pensions for ex-Servicemen and ensure that from now onwards, they are treated not only with fairness, but with the greatest possible generosity.

11.10 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale):: May I supplement what the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) has said, by one or two figures? Since these judgments in the High Court the percentage of cases which have gone in favour of the applicant has risen in the first month from 28 to 31 per cent., and in the second month to 32 per cent. That is not a great rise, but it is positive proof, I think, that the judgments have favourably affected decisions of the appeal tribunals. It would seem very wrong that any technicality should deny the men who have failed to "get by" the tribunals in the past two or three years what is now their right, and I think we must press the Minister to establish some easier machinery for a review of their cases than that of going to the High Court on a point of law. The second point is that the British Legion has, in fact, acted as advocate for go per cent. of all the cases which have gone to these tribunals, and out of 32,000 cases 10,000 have been won and 22,000 lost. I do not think that there can be any hon. Member in the House who has not heard of a case or read a case with care with regard to which he is satisfied that less than justice has been done. If this is so, it is indeed a blot upon our way of dealing with these men.
I would offer a word of caution in the minute that remains to me. If we are to accept this doctrine, "Fit for service, fit for pension" without any qualification, then my hon. Friends will, I am sure, see that in the case of a man who spent one week in home service and then left the Army because he was found to be unfit, and had been so all the time, or perhaps left the service for some other reason and 10 or 20 years later becomes ill, the principle of "fit for service, fit for pension," without any qualification, would give him a pension. He was fit, if only for a week and if only for home service.

Is he to be fit for a pension for ever? In the interests of the men who were blinded, or who lost their limbs or their health on our battle fields fighting our battles, some preference must be given to them over the men who have hardly a shred of a claim. Therefore we cannot have this slogan, attractive as it is, but we must have something nearer to justice than we have at present.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Burden (Sheffield, Park):: I think the House will be surprised to learn that in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) the chairman of the appeals board refused permission for appeal to the High Court. The claimant, however, happened to be a member of the National Association of Local Government Officers, and went to his organisation. This body took legal opinion and again doubt was expressed whether the case could be sustained in the High Court, in view of the attitude of the chairman. The organisation took the risk, and I suggest that, in so doing, they performed a great public service, I put it to the Minister and to this House that if that man had not had behind him a great organisation, prepared to take the risk he would have been denied a pension. There must be thousands of cases in which the six weeks has elapsed, or in which there has been no powerful backing for a man or a woman—because there are women involved as well—who is suffering the injustice of being denied a pension. I appeal to the Minister, now that we have had this decision, to reconsider the matter, wipe out the six weeks limitation and review all the cases. One cannot in six weeks go over the cases, which we all know, of people who have been unjustly denied a pension. Now that this judgment has been given, those cases should be reviewed in the light of the new circumstances.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham):: In thanking the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) for raising this very important question and putting it so ably, I would mention one aspect of the matter. All of us remember that in the early days of the last war there was a tendency on the part of brass hats to treat shell shock cases almost as having some taint of cowardice or of nervousness about them. I am going to say now that the treatment of cases of neurosis is most regrettable in most instances, quite apart


from the fact that wholly inadequate hospital treatment is provided and is exceedingly difficult to obtain. There are many cases in my own division, and in other divisions, where men suffering acutely from neurosis or some associated complaint, have been kept at home with all the worry and burden of hopelessness, week after week, waiting for an appeal to be heard, waiting for a chance of treatment, and have finally gone before a tribunal which has treated them with less than the courtesy due to men who served the country in arduous times, and who have collapsed under the strain of their service.
The Minister, as we all know, is kindly, is courteous, is active and approachable, and has served the interests of the men he is there to serve. But I want to say to him with respect, that we are, all of us, getting from his Ministry to-day letters which breathe a spirit of hopelessness, letters which seem to be guided by regulations wholly too strict, which give no hope of review, no hope of reconsideration, in cases which obviously demand review. I quote one case, the case of a man who served in two or three continents, who was out in the desert for months, and who has come home today in a hopelessly nervous state. He is in a mental state, which almost calls for treatment in a mental hospital. He is a complete wreck. Although he was A1, when he joined up, and A1 when medically examined 12 months afterwards, and served abroad for upwards of two years, the answer to his claim is, that his present state is not attributable to service, I agree with the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that although "Fit for service, fit for pension" is a useful slogan in this matter, I would prefer to see it put clearly that the onus of proof where a man is passed A1, is upon the Ministry. I would have been content with that, if the law were so administered. I appreciate that the wider statement or the principle may lead to abuse and to a great deal of expense which, perhaps, could not be justified. But I hope the Minister after this Debate tonight will reconsider the whole position, and the regulations and the right of appeal to the county court, and will say that this man, denied the right of a pension, shall have the chance of a rehearing of his case.

I am satisfied that there is an almost unanimous opinion in the House on this matter.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon):: The Minister must consider those cases which have already been decided, otherwise men who have served in this war will be divided into two categories—those whose cases were decided before the recent judgment, and those whose cases have been decided since. To have the fighting men divided in that way must lead to grievance and dissatisfaction.

11.20 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling):: The question of "Fit for service, fit for pension," has been raised with great sincerity by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Macpherson) but I think the answer to him has been given by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and by one of the hon. Members on this side of the House. I admit frankly that we cannot have that. This question of "fit for service, fit for pension" has been discussed and considered in the utmost detail and with the utmost care by the last two Governments. When this Government came in and I was made Minister of Pensions, I was given certain powers. Many Members asked for a Select Committee, but we did not want a Select Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes we did."] The Government did not want it. I was asked to go into the whole question. I did so, and I brought in the White Paper which gave certain improvements. In 1943 the question was discussed, and then a White Paper was produced, but it was turned down for reasons similar to those given by two hon. Members during tonight's Debate. The Government have been accused tonight of being ungenerous, of people being denied pensions who have the right to them. I do not accept that view. The Ministry of Pensions has never been so sympathetically administered as it is today.

Mr. Hale:: That is not saying much.

Mr. Palinǵ:: That is an easy remark to make, but it is much more difficult to prove it. [HON. MEMBERS: "We can produce proofs."] When the 1943 change was made the onus of proof in these appeals was then on the appellant. This Government altered that, and the onus of proof is now on my Ministry. The Ministry must prove now that the


claimant has no right to a pension, and I claim that we are carrying out that principle. What evidence can we accept in order to rebut an appellant's claim except medical evidence. We now get the finest medical evidence in the country. We are not interested in turning down men's claims. We discuss and decide each claim fairly on the evidence before us, and if the man is not satisfied he can go to a tribunal. If they turn him down he can go to a High Court judge on a point of law if he obtains leave to appeal. [Interruption.] Let me point out to hon. Members who say these men have no chance, that there is no organisation in this country which grants pensions or benefits of any kind to any person and which gives so many opportunities to claimants to prove their rights, or to fight those rights through various courts and committees, as are given in these cases. First a man is invalided out of the Army on a medical board. He comes to us and we may turn him down on the same basis. He can come to us as often as he likes, two, three, four, five times and if he has any new medical evidence to offer, any new point to make, we examine it and give him a fresh medical board. He can do more. He can go to his Member of Parliament and if the Member takes up the case on the production of new evidence he can come to us and once more we open up the case and once again have a medical board. Further, there are the war pensions committees to which these men can go, and on which are men ripe in experience in these cases. If it is so desired, once again there can be a medical board.
All this can happen, time after time, in appeal after appeal. In 1943, rather against the desire of the Ministry, independent tribunals were set up which had nothing whatever to do with the Ministry. Each tribunal had as chairman a barrister, it had a doctor, and it had a layman who knew the appellant's side. This applied to men and women, for both were affected. The committee was entirely independent. These again went into the question and came to a decision. Then the man could go to the High Court if he had leave to appeal. [Interruption.] In the tens of thousands of cases represented by the organisation which has been referred to tonight, with very few exceptions, no leave to appeal has ever been asked be

cause, in the main, they were satisfied that they had had a decent deal.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely):: Is it not a fact that the evidence which is fundamental in those cases which go before the tribunals, is the evidence given by the medical board which originally sees the state of the man, as soon as he has recovered from his wounds?

Mr. Paling:: The House of Commons laid it down that in cases in which a man went to a tribunal we had to put down in précis form every scrap of evidence for and against the man that we knew. We have to send it to him for his consideration so that he can make any objection, and send in any amendment he thinks fit. After 28 days it can go to the tribunal. We are compelled by law to state everything, and we do so. After that he can go to the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much does he have to pay?"]. I am coming to that. Or rather he can go to the tribunal, and if the tribunal refuses him leave to appeal, he can go over their head to the High Court Judge, who can give him leave to appeal. If he gets leave to appeal, either from the tribunal itself or from the High Court judge, all his expenses are borne by the Government.

Sir I. Fraser:: Can the Minister answer the immediate question: what does he intend to do in the light of these new judgments?

Mr. Paling:: Three judgments have been given. There was the Moxon judgment given by Mr. Justice Tucker, who laid down the principle that we must give the doctor's certificate, and give the name of the doctor on it. We have done that since. That was a technical flaw. When that same principle went to Court of Session in Scotland with three judges, they entirely disagreed with it, and agreed with our method of doing it. When the case came before Mr. Justice Denning, he had to decide between Mr. Justice Tucker and three judges in Scotland. He went into a lengthy argument to give reasons why he agreed with Mr. Justice Tucker in the Moxon judgment. He said, in effect, that we were not presenting our evidence in the right way, or in a way to please him. It was not because the merits of the case demanded that a man should have a pension, but because we did not present the detailed


evidence in the way in which we ought. If those cases were to go before a judge it is by no means certain that they would get through. If a certain judge gives a decision or lays down a principle, as Mr. Justice Denning has done, does that mean that every case that has gone previously has to be re-examined? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The law does not allow that. Further, suppose we did that, and reopened a case, and twelve months hence another judge gave another and different decision; ought we to go back on it again? This procedure was laid down precisely by the House of Commons in order to reach finality upon this question. As I said, it is a matter of presentation, and not a matter of a case being necessarily wrong. Because of that we cannot contemplate this proposition. If we did, then, if we lost our case because our presentation of the evidence

was wrong, we too would require to have an opportunity of re-presenting it and going over our evidence again.
It would probably mean that when we presented our evidence in the way the judge wanted, the result would be the same and the man would not get a pension. A wrong idea prevails among Members of Parliament about the Denning judgment. Let me get back to the question again. It is wrong and I hope Members of Parliament will not persist because—
It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified by the Order made upon 16th August.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.